■1  /•"«.. 


-4. 


.H 


O 


HARVARD  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


HARVARD 
THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 


EDITED  FOR  THE 

FACULTY  OF  DIVINITY 

IN 

HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


BY 

GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  JAMES  H.  ROPES, 
KIRSOPP  LAKE 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

OXTORO  UinVEESITy  Pb£SS 

I919 


HARVARD  THEOLOGICAL  STUDIES 

VII 

IS  MARK  A  ROMAN 
GOSPEL? 


BY 


BENJAMIN  W.  BACON 

BUCKINGHAM  PROFESSOR  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 
AND  INTERPRETATION  IN  YALE  UNIVERSITY 


CAMBRIDGE 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MmFORD 

Oxford  Univeesity  Press 

I919 


TO 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 

IN  GRATEFUL  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  OF  THE 

DEGREE  OF  S.T.D.  CONFERRED 

JUNE  l8,  I914 


COPYRIGHT,  1919 
HARVARD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


CONTENTS 


PAOB 


Introduction 1 

I.  The  Tradition 7 

II.  The  Dissemination 34 

III.  The  Internal  Evidence 

A.  Language 48 

B.  Editorial  Glosses  and  Explanations     55 

C.  Local  Geography  and  History 59 

D.  The  "  Paulinism  "  of  Mark 66 

E.  Attitude  toward  Jewish-Christian  Leaders    .    .  75 

F.  Markan  versus  Pauline  Doctrine  of  the  Harden- 

ing of  Israel 80 

G.  Markan  Christology 85 

H.  Roman  Ritual  as  Affecting  Mark 90 

IV.  Conclusion 99 


IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

Next  to  the  authorship  and  the  date  of  a  Gospel  the  question 
of  its  provenance  is  of  vital  moment  to  the  historico-critical 
interpreter. 

An  example  of  this  is  the  fourth  Gospel,  a  writing  attributed 
since  181  a.d.  to  the  Apostle  John.  It  dates  from  about  110  a.d. 
and  almost  certainly  emanates  from  Ephesus,  but  differs  from 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  to  a  degree  impossible  to  explain  as  a  mere 
matter  of  development  in  time.  Within  the  Hmits  of  a  decade 
or  two  a  Christian  community  does  not  so  revolutionize  its 
fundamental  religious  conceptions  as  to  substitute  a  Christology 
of  incarnation,  such  as  we  find  in  the  Johannine  writings,  for  a 
Christology  of  apotheosis,  such  as  monopolizes  the  entire  field 
in  all  the  Synoptic  literature,  and  manifestly  represents  the 
accepted  doctrine  throughout  the  churches  which  employed 
this  literature  for  catechetic  purposes.  And  the  contrast  be- 
tween Johannine  and  Synoptic  literature  is  not  confined  to 
Christology.  The  differences  are  quite  as  great  in  other  doc- 
trinal fields  such  as  soteriology  and  eschatology,  to  say  nothing 
of  questions  of  form  and  of  historical  fact. 

The  true  explanation  of  these  differences  between  the  first 
three  and  the  fourth  Gospel  must  be  more  geographical  than 
temporal.  The  two  types  derive  not  so  much  from  different 
periods  as  from  different  environments.  We  may  properly 
speak  of  the  four  Synoptic  writings  (counting  Acts  as  a  separate 
work)  as  Syrian;  for  in  spite  of  the  admixture  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  of  an  important  Second  Source,  ^  the  three  Gospels  all 
represent,  through  common  dependence  on  an  outline  of 
"  Petrine  "  2  story,  a  basic  report  which,  however  adapted  in 
Mark  to  the  emancipating,  anti-legalistic,  principles  of  the 

'  The  material  commonly  designated  by  the  symbol  Q. 

2  The  term  "  Petrine  "  is  here  employed,  not  in  the  doctrinal  sense  attached  to 
it  by  the  Tubingen  critics,  but  merely  to  characterize  material  which  has  Peter  as 
its  central  figure  next  to  the  Lord;  or  at  least  reports  events  as  they  would  appear 
from  the  testimony  of  this  Apostle. 


2  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Gentile  churches  (and  in  this  doctrinal  sense  Pauline),  goes  back 
for  its  historical  data  to  Peter  and  the  Galilean  Apostles. 

In  the  later,  elaborated  form  of  Matthew  and  Luke  this 
Synoptic  type  of  evangeUc  tradition  cannot  be  much  earher 
than  100  a.d.,  whether  Matthew  or  (more  probably)  Luke  be 
prior.  The  Markan  form  is  more  primitive;  but  while  it  may 
antedate  Matthew  and  Luke  by  ten  or  possibly  fifteen  years, 
ancient  tradition  itself  does  not  at  first  claim  for  Mark  an 
origin  within  the  life-time  of  the  Apostles,  but  frankly  admits 
the  loss  of  the  true  sequence  of  events  in  Jesus'  career,  ascribing 
it  to  the  inability  of  Mark  to  consult  the  eye-witnesses.  ^  This 
unfortunate  disappearance  of  the  "  order  "  is  attested  not 
merely  by  the  ancient  tradition  which  we  have  presently  to 
scrutinize,  but  at  an  earlier  time  by  our  third  evangelist  (Luke  1, 
1-4,  Kade^Tjs),  and  subsequently  by  an  early  defender  of  the 
"  order  "  of  the  fourth  Gospel. ^ 

Whatever  the  precise  dates,  and  whatever  the  exact  pro- 
venance of  this  triad  of  Gospels,  Mark,  its  earliest  member, 
together  with  the  two  satellites  of  Mark,  embodies  what  we  may 
designate  the  "  Petrine,"  or  "  Galilean,"  tradition  of  the  sayings 
and  doings  of  Jesus.  The  Ephesian  Gospel,  which  stands  over 
against  this  group,  in  closer  relation  to  the  Second  Source  than 
to  Mark,  may  justly  be  termed  "  Deutero-Pauline  ";  for  it  not 
only  embodies  the  distinctive  Christology  and  soteriology  of 
Paul,  in  many  respects  completing  and  reconstructing  Synoptic 
tradition  from  the  viewpoint  characteristic  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  especially  Ephesians,  but  (as  we  have  seen)  it  can  be 
definitely  traced  to  Ephesus,  the  headquarters  of  Paul's  mis- 
sionary activity.  This  Ephesian  Gospel,  if  it  deigns  to  borrow 
some  few  elements  of  Galilean  tradition,  presents  them  only  in 
a  form  completely  recast,  adapting  them  to  the  paramount  pur- 
pose of  exhibiting  the  whole  earthly  career  of  Jesus  from  the 
Pauline  standpoint.  It  is  set  forth  as  a  sort  of  avatar  of  the 
eternal  Logos. 

1  On  the  later  modifications  of  the  tradition  which  avoid  this  unwelcome  result, 
see  below,  p.  20. 

^  The  Muratorian  Fragment  (to  be  dated  with  Lightfoot  ca.  185,  against  Zahn, 
Hamack  and  modern  scholars  generally).  Its  author  quotes  1  John  1,  1-3  in 
support  of  his  claim  that  John  narrated  events  "in  their  order." 


IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ?  3 

A  concrete  example  will  help  to  demonstrate  the  import- 
ance (as  yet  by  no  means  appreciated)  of  this  differentiation 
of  Petrine,  or  Synoptic,  gospel  tradition  from  the  Deutero- 
Pauline,  or  Johannine;  for  it  has  a  direct  bearing  on  ques- 
tions of  historical  criticism.  The  Petrine  tradition  in  both  its 
branches  has  much  to  say  of  Jesus'  work  in  exorcizing  evil 
spirits.  In  the  Second  Source  one  of  the  principal  dialogues 
centers  round  the  accusation  of  the  scribes,  "  He  casteth  out 
by  Beelzebub."  In  both  elements  of  the  Book  of  Acts  exorcism 
is  prominent  as  a  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power.  In 
the  Petrine  speeches  of  I  Acts  ^  Jesus'  ministry  is  specifically 
described  as  "'  going  about  doing  good,  healing  all  those  that 
were  oppressed  of  the  devil."  In  Mark,  above  all,  exorcism  is  the 
typical  evidence  of  Jesus'  supernatural  power.  It  is  the  "  be- 
ginning of  miracles  "  at  Capernaum  (1,  21-28),  the  commission 
of  the  Twelve  (3,  15),  and  the  proof  of  supreme  power  at  the 
mount  of  Transfiguration  (9, 14-29).  Power  over  demons  is  the 
assurance  the  reader  receives  from  the  evangelist  that  Jesus  is 
in  reality  "  the  Holy  One  of  God  "  (1,  24,  34;  3,  11-12;  5,  7), 
and  constitutes  the  ground  on  which  the  Twelve  are  brought  to 
this  conviction  (4,  39-41). ^  Its  supreme  manifestation  is  the 
beginning  of  the  end  (13,  25).  Most  characteristic  is  the  story 
of  the  exorcizing  of  the  legion  of  devils  (5,  1-20).  Here  Red.- 
Marc.,3  if  he  does  not  actually  build  upon  the  well  attested  in- 
cident of  II  Acts  (cf.  Mark  5,  7  with  Acts  16,  17),  at  all  events 
makes  manifest  the  ground  of  his  own  theory  of  demonic  recog- 
nition (1,  24,  34;  3,  10-12).  On  this  Petrine  basis  accordingly 
exorcism  appears  as  the  typical  and  characteristic  mighty  work 
of  Jesus  and  his  disciples.  It  is  the  nucleus  and  core  of  Markan 
Christology. 

Turn  now  to  Pauhne  and  Deutero-Pauhne  tradition.  Only 
in  the  form  of  a  wresthng  against  the  powers  of  darkness  "  in 

1  Acts  1,  1-15,  35  has  been  proved  by  Prof.  C.  C.  Torrey  (Composition  and 
Date  of  Acts.  Harvard  Theological  Studies  I,  1916)  to  be  the  translation  of  an 
Aramaic  work  which  has  Peter  as  its  central  figure.  Following  Torrey's  nomen- 
clature we  designate  this  portion  as  I  Acts. 

2  It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  language  addressed  to  the  storm  (n«l>inu(To, 
cf.  1,  25)  imphes  that  to  the  evangelist  it  is  a  manifestation  of  demonic  power. 

«  I.  e.,  Redactor  Marci.  The  designation  is  used  for  the  evangelist  individually 
in  distinction  from  his  sources,  or  material. 


4  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

the  heavenlies  "  (iu  rots  ewovpavloLs)  is  there  any  trace  of  exor- 
cism in  Paul;  and  this  is  the  only  trace  of  it  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  (John  12,  31).  It  is  easy  to  attribute  the  silence  of  Paul 
as  to  exorcisms  of  Jesus  to  accident,  somewhat  less  easy  thus  to 
account  for  his  silence  on  the  subject  in  referring  to  gifts  of 
"  miracles  "  and  "  healings  "  in  the  Church,  and  practically 
impossible  thus  to  account  for  the  silence  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
We  may  say  that  Pauline  and  Deutero-Pauline  tradition  is  on 
this  point  less  historical.  There  is  abundant  reason  to  hold  that 
on  this  point  the  more  cultured  circles  represented  by  Paul  and 
the  fourth  evangelist  felt  rather  differently  from  the  ol  ttoXXoi, 
and  their  reserve  may  be  thus  accounted  for.  On  the  other 
hand  the  type  of  Christology  represented  in  Mark  5,  1-20  and 
the  connected  passages  need  not  be  unaffected  by  the  form  of 
belief  cherished  in  Petrine  circles. 

The  purpose  for  which  this  illustration  is  adduced  is  not  to 
determine  on  which  side  the  truer  representation  lies,  but  to 
note  the  difference,  and  the  consequent  importance  of  distin- 
guishing the  two  types  of  evangelic  tradition,  and  to  observe 
that  they  are  not  developments  the  one  from  the  other,  but 
must  have  existed  for  a  considerable  period  side  by  side. 

At  the  latest  the  Johannine  Gospel  cannot  be  more  than  a 
decade  or  two  later  in  origin  than  the  Synoptic  group,  whose 
development  covers  approximately  the  period  75-100  a.d. 
Provenance,  therefore,  in  the  case  of  this  fundamental  distinc- 
tion between  the  Petrine  and  the  Deutero-Pauline  type,  is  a 
matter  of  much  more  significance  to  the  critical  exegete  than 
mere  date.  The  contrast  of  Johannine  and  Synoptic  represents 
the  difference  between  the  Deutero-Pauline  point  of  view  and 
that  of  the  Galilean  Apostles  in  its  later  development.  It  is  a 
difference  which  with  due  appreciation  of  the  provenance  be- 
comes not  merely  intelligible  but  illuminating.  In  their  attempt 
to  explain  the  historical  origin  of  the  Gospels  the  Tubingen 
critics  made  altogether  too  much  of  the  idea  of  rectilinear  de- 
velopment. Recognizing  the  extreme  degree  of  the  difference 
here  noted,  they  postulated  almost  a  century  of  time  to  account 
for  the  development  of  the  Johannine  Logos  doctrine  beyond 
the  apotheosis  Christology  of  the  Synoptists;  forgetting  that  in 


IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ?  5 

all  but  name  the  Logos  doctrine  is  already  present  in  the  Pauhne 
Epistles,  the  earliest  literature  of  all,  since,  group  for  group, 
the  PauHne  Epistles  antedate  the  Synoptic  writings  by  a  full 
generation.  Thus  the  school  of  Baur,  in  spite  of  their  epoch- 
making  insight  into  the  interworking  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
tendencies  in  the  apostohc  church  (the  so-called  Petrine  and 
Pauline  gospel),  conspicuously  failed  in  their  theory  of  Gospel 
origins.  The  failure  was  largely  due  to  neglect  of  the  geo- 
graphical factor.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  twentieth- 
century  criticism  will  have  broader  vision  than  Tubingen,  and 
better  appreciation  of  the  fact  so  curiously  symbolized  by  Ire- 
naeus  in  his  famous  defense  ^  of  the  '^  sacred  quaternion,"  that 
the  great  catholic  Gospels  are  representative  of  world-regions, 
standing  for  phases  of  the  common  teaching  characteristic  of 
the  great  historic  divisions  of  the  Church. 

Mark,  the  earliest  extant  Gospel,  shows  the  beginnings  of 
Synoptic  development,  or  of  Gospel  story  as  distinct  from  pre- 
cept. It  determines  the  Syrian  type,  and  in  this  case,  for  this 
reason,  date  is  a  matter  of  greater  importance  than  provenance. 
Fortunately  the  post-apostolic  ^  date  for  Mark,  so  emphatically 
attested  in  the  most  ancient  testimony  (and  in  our  judgment 
strongly  corroborated  by  the  internal  evidence),  is  only  dis- 
puted by  a  group  of  ultra-modern  scholars  following  the  watch- 
word of  Harnack,  "  Back  to  tradition."  In  this  case  the  reaction 
is  not  merely  back  to  tradition  but  far  beyond  it. 

In  the  case  of  the  type-determining,  original  member  of  the 
Synoptic  group  the  question  of  provenance  may  perhaps  be 
admitted  to  be  on  the  whole  less  important  than  that  of  date; 
but  it  is  far  from  being  merely  academic. 

A  Gospel  is  seldom  the  product  of  a  single  author's  mind,  and 
for  this  reason  is  not  in  the  earlier  times  superscribed  with  his 
name.    Each  of  the  four  canonical  Gospels,  at  least,  embodies 

1  Haer.  iii,  11,  8. 

2  In  an  important  passage  of  his  Stromateis  (vii,  17,  106  f.)-  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria dates  the  periods  covered  respectively  by  the  teaching  (1)  of  the  Lord, 
(2)  of  the  Apostles,  (3)  of  the  heresiarchs.  The  Apostohc  age  ends  according  to 
Clement  with  the  close  of  "  Paul's  ministry  under  Nero."  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
we  employ  the  term  "  post-apostoUc." 


6  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

the  catechetic  material  of  a  church,  the  entire  available  record 
of  its  many  pastors  and  teachers  relating  to  the  mission  and 
teaching  of  Jesus.  Compositions  of  a  more  limited  character, 
reflecting  the  special  views  of  individuals,  undoubtedly  were 
produced.  References  to  them  occur  in  the  Fathers.  But  such 
writings  could  not  survive.  Only  what  stood  for  the  generality, 
and  was  in  the  main  a  just  reflection  of  current  belief  obtained 
general  currency,  and  ultimately  canonicity.  Hence  the  im- 
portance of  provenance.  Were  it  merely  a  question  where  the 
evangelist  Mark  happened  to  be  when  he  sat  down  to  write,  it 
would  be  trifling  enough.  If,  however,  this  Gospel  really  re- 
presents that  phase  of  Syrian  evangelic  tradition  which  had 
become  current  in  the  great  Gentile  church  of  Rome  a  decade 
or  so  after  the  death  of  Paul,  the  fact  is  of  vital  significance. 
It  will  throw  much-needed  light  on  the  history  of  this  obscure 
period,  and  will  help  us  to  interpret  its  scanty  records.  In  con- 
fronting the  problem  we  necessarily  fall  back  upon  the  approved 
critical  method:  first,  scrutiny  of  early  testimony;  secondly, 
survey  of  the  phenomena  of  dissemination;  thirdly,  comparison 
of  the  internal  evidence. 


I.    THE  TRADITION 

The  very  form  of  the  question  "  Is  Mark  Roman?  "  implies  the 
existence  of  a  tradition  that  it  emanates  from  Rome.  This  tra- 
dition can,  in  fact,  be  traced  back  to  ca.  150  a.d.,  and  was  so 
generally  accepted  throughout  the  second  half  of  the  second 
century  that  we  cannot  but  give  it  consideration;  all  the  more 
because  it  persists  in  spite  of  a  strong  tendency,  illustrated  in 
the  Muratorianum  and  elsewhere,^  to  carry  back  the  origin  of 
the  Gospels  to  a  period  antecedent  to  the  dispersion  of  the 
Twelve  from  Palestine.  Nor  is  the  tradition  of  Roman  pro- 
venance for  Mark  wholly  invahdated,  as  I  hope  to  show,  by  the 
fact  that  it  cannot  be  traced  further  back  than  Papias  (fl.  140- 
160).  Why  Papias  held  this  belief  is  precisely  the  present  sub- 
ject of  enquiry. 

Tradition,  in  general,  is  like  the  British  historian  of  science 
whose  ''  foible  was  omniscience."  It  must  "  know  all  mysteries 
and  all  knowledge,"  and  while  it  cannot  be  said  to  "  endure  all 
things  "  it  certainly  "  beheveth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things," 
and  ' '  never  f aileth. ' '  Like  the  dragoman  who  escorts  the  devout 
traveller  through  the  Holy  Land,  its  business  is  to  please. 
Hence,  if  at  a  loss  for  true  information,  it  never  fails  to  apply 
the  spur  to  a  practised  and  willing,  though  generally  imitative 
imagination.  The  framer  of  tradition  and  the  exhibitor  of 
sacred  sites  (often  one  and  the  same  individual)  will  always 
relate  what  he  believes  his  enquirer  wishes  to  hear,  in  as  close 
approximation  as  his  guessing  powers  can  determine  the  prefer- 
ence. Historians  are  therefore  quite  accustomed,  since  the  days 
of  Herodotus,  to  scrutinize  the  answers  tradition  offers  to  their 
enquiries,  making  allowance  for  this  courteous  volubiUty.  We 
also  allow  for  its  very  natural  (and  usually  quite  transparent) 
bias  in  favor  of  the  currently  accepted  view.    But  we  ought 

>  The  clause  of  the  Muratorianum  which  represents  the  Apostle  John  as  con- 
sulting with  his  fellow  disciples  preparatory  to  writing  his  Gospel,  taken  together 
with  the  curious  reference  to  Paul  as  "  following  the  example  of  his  predecessor 
John  in  writing  to  seven  churches  only,"  shows  that  this  contemporary  of  Irenaeus 
thinks  of  the  fourth  Gospel  as  written  in  Palestine.    Irenaeus  and  others  exphcitly 

declare  this  of  Matthew. 

7 


8  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

also  to  realize  (and  this  is  often  overlooked)  how  much  differ- 
ence it  makes  to  the  reliabihty  of  the  witness  of  tradition  what 
kind  of  information  is  sohcited. 

Tradition  is  equally  voluble,  and  equally  positive,  when  stat- 
ing fact  or  fiction.  But  there  are  some  things  which  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  are  traditionally  knowable,  concerning  which 
it  may,  therefore,  be  profitably  consulted;  and  other  things 
which  in  the  nature  of  the  case  are  not  matters  of  pubUc  infor- 
mation, concerning  which,  therefore,  enquiry  elicits  only  the 
confusion  of  words  without  knowledge. 

When  questions  are  raised  concerning  the  authorship,  date, 
or  provenance  of  any  undated,  anonymous  composition  such  as 
a  Gospel,  the  relative  values  of  tradition  and  internal  evidence 
differ  very  greatly.  As  regards  date,  tradition,  for  obvious 
reasons,  is  usually  vague  and  hesitating.^  Tradition,  as  a  rule, 
has  as  little  motive  as  means  for  determining  such  matters. 
Criticism  will  therefore  usually  find  a  better  basis  for  the  date 
of  a  given  writing  in  the  internal  evidence  than  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Fathers.  As  respects  the  author's  name,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  situation  is  reversed.  Criticism  can  rarely 
venture  even  the  most  tentative  affirmation.  Tradition  has  the 
field  to  itself,  and  is  bold  in  proportion  to  its  consciousness  of 
the  general  ignorance.  It  names  the  author  of  any  ancient, 
anonymous  document  with  perfect  confidence,  looking  only  to 
meet  the  wishes  of  its  patrons  and  to  enhance  the  value  of 
the  work  on  which  both  parties  depend.  Thus,  when  tradition 
roundly  affirms  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  and  David 
the  Psalms,  the  public  applauds,  while  the  critic  is  put  to  the 
blush.  What  avails  it  to  disprove  his  opponent's  positive  affir- 
mation, when  he  stands  dumb  before  the  counterdemand, 
"  Well,  if  Moses  and  David  did  not  write  these  books,  who  did  ?  " 

^  The  great  exception  to  this  general  rule  is  the  date  "  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Domitian  "  for  the  appearance  of  Revelation,  a  date  known  to  Irenaeus  (probably 
through  Papias)  and  independently  confirmed  by  Epiphanius.  In  this  much  dis- 
puted book  of  "  prophecy,"  the  predictive  element  made  the  question  of  date  vital 
to  the  controversy  and  so  preserved  it.  Criticism  is  turning  back  in  our  day  to 
accept  it  as  correct  for  Revelation  in  its  present  form.  Its  rejection  by  the  Tubin- 
gen critics  in  favor  of  a  date,  earlier  by  a  quarter  of  a  century,  put  forward  on 
pxirely  internal  grounds  is  curiously  like  the  present  attempt  to  outstrip  antiquity 
in  carrying  back  the  date  of  Mark. 


THE  TRADITION  9 

To  the  general  public  such  ignorance  is  unpardonable.  The 
more  experienced  recognize  contrariwise  in  the  assumed  knowl- 
edge of  the  traditionalist  what  Polycarp  in  his  Epistle  calls 
"  the  empty  talk  of  the  many  (fxaraLOTrjs  rdv  iroWCiv)  and  his 
younger  fellow  bishop  Papias,  our  earliest  enquirer  into  the 
mystery  of  Gospel  origins,  calls  the  information  of  ''  those  who 
have  so  very  much  to  tell  (ot  ra  ttoWol  Xeyopres).  By  the  con- 
trast he  draws  between  these  and  "  those  who  teach  the  truth," 
Papias  impHes  that  the  information  of  these  popular  teachers, 
eagerly  sought  by  "  the  many,"  was  of  the  abundant  kind  that 
can  be  affirmed  but  not  verified.  "^ 

As  regards  the  provenance  of  a  writing,  tradition  will  be  apt 
to  speak  with  less  apologetic  bias,  and  with  far  greater  hkeli- 
hood  of  knowing  whereof  it  affirms  than  as  regards  authorship. 
Take  as  example  the  Book  of  Revelation.  Doctrinal  contro- 
versy brought  the  book  into  the  full  glare  of  publicity  within 
a  half-century  of  its  origin.^  Between  145  and  190  it  was  vehe- 
mently denounced  by  opponents  of  the  "  Phrygian  "  heresy 
(Montanism),  and  as  emphatically  commended  by  chiUasts 
such  as  Papias  and  those  who  (as  Eusebius  avers)  were  in- 
fluenced by  Papias  in  the  direction  of  his  own  chiliasm,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  Irenaeus,  perhaps  also  Mehto  of  Sardis,  who  wrote 
a  defence  of  the  book.  In  this  case  what  could  really  be  known 
is  apparent,  and  should  be  distinguished  by  critics  from  what 
could  not  be  known,  but  would  inevitably  tend  to  be  asserted 
by  artless  inference.  For  the  one  kind  of  statement  we  have  a 
perfect  right  to  depend  on  the  assertions  of  the  Fathers;  for 
the  other  we  have  not.  When  Papias  and  others  of  his  age  and 
school  affirm  the  "  authenticity,"  Uterally  the  "  trustworthi- 
ness "  {to  a^LoincTov),  of  Revelation,  as  they  are  reported  to  do 
by  Andreas  of  Caesarea,  what  they  really  mean  (if  we  regard 
Andreas'  report  as  exact),  and  what  Justin  means  when  he  de- 
clares that  the  vision  of  the  millennial  New  Jerusalem  was  seen 

1  With  the  two  classes  of  false  teaching  denounced  by  Polycarp  and  Papias 
compare  the  two  of  similar  character  in  1  Tim.  6,  3-5  and  20-21. 

2  I.e.,  in  the  Greek  form  in  which  we  know  it,  prefaced  by  the  letters  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia.  The  Greek  work  is  based  upon  an  older,  Palestinian 
apocalypse  (or  apocalypses)  translated  from  Aramaic,  or  Hebrew.  The  origmal 
may  date  back  in  whole  or  in  part  before  the  death  of  Nero. 


10  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

"  by  John  an  Apostle  of  the  Lord,"  is  that  their  antichihastic 
opponents,  who  at  this  time  were  repudiating  and  disparaging 
Revelation  as  a  spurious  and  heretical  book,  were  wrong; 
because  to  their  certain  knowledge  it  had  been  promulgated  and 
employed  with  acceptance  and  honor  by  orthodox  churches  in 
the  region  of  Ephesus  since  *'  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian." 
When  such  early  defenders  of  the  chief  inspired  book  of  mil- 
lenarianism  go  beyond  this  knowable  fact,  and  are  subpoenaed 
(with  or  without  their  consent)  to  vouch  for  the  identity  of  the 
speaker  throughout  the  composition  in  its  present  form,  they 
manifestly  transcend  their  sphere.  In  the  epilogue  of  Revela- 
tion (22,  8-9)  the  editor  of  the  book  affirms  (doubtless  in  good 
faith)  that  the  seer  who  in  19,  10  had  used  exactly  this  same 
representation  and  phraseology  was  no  other  than  the  Apostle 
John  ( !).  He  reiterates  this  assertion  in  the  preamble  (Rev.  1, 
1-3)  and  again  in  the  introduction  (1,  4,  9).  He  even  takes  the 
liberty  of  continuing  the  utterance  in  the  first  person.  It  is  the 
business  of  the  critic,  after  comparing  19,  10  with  22,  8-9,  to 
decide  whether  this  affirmation  is  correct  or  not;  whether  it 
represents  knowledge  or  conjecture.  Papias  and  the  later  de- 
fenders of  the  book,  if  they  really  went  so  far  as  Andreas  alleges 
in  vouching  for  it,  and  in  any  case  Justin,  who  is  probably  echo- 
ing Papias,  make  an  assertion  which  oversteps  their  knowledge 
as  clearly  as  their  intent;  for  few  things  are  more  certain  than 
that  the  same  individual  who  as  seer  in  Rev.  19,  10  had  just 
been  forbidden  to  worship  the  angel  and  desisted,  did  not  at- 
tempt it  again  as  editor  in  22,  8. 

The  example  of  Revelation  illustrates  our  distinction.  The 
place  where,  and  (more  vaguely)  the  time  when,  a  given  anony- 
mous writing  began  to  circulate  is  matter  of  public  knowledge. 
The  allegations  of  tradition  on  these  points  are  relatively 
trustworthy,  especially  if  free  from  (and  still  more  if  opposed 
to)  apologetic  interest.  Contrariwise,  the  author's  name  in  the 
case  of  an  anonymous  work  is  necessarily  known  to  very  few 
(though  a  matter  of  conjecture  to  multitudes  later,  and  in- 
creasingly so  as  controversy  regarding  the  content  seeks  on 
the  one  side  to  clothe  it  with  authority,  on  the  other  to  dis- 
parage it).    In  the  case  of  the  Revelation  ascribed  to  "  John  " 


THE  TRADITION  11 

the  original  "  prophecies  "  were  doubtless  (as  usual)  anony- 
mous. The  Ephesian  editor  who  issues  the  work  in  Greek, 
prefacing  it  with  introductory  "  letters  "  to  the  seven  churches 
of  Asia  (cc.  1-3),  and  supplementing  it  with  an  epilogue  (22, 
6-21),  ascribes  the  visions  to  "John,"  He  takes  the  more 
questionable,  but  in  his  time  not  unusual,  further  hberty  of  add- 
ing to  the  message,  continuing  the  seer's  employment  of  the 
first  person  singular  on  his  own  account.  As  matter  of  conjec- 
ture the  name  of  the  Apostle  John  would  be  as  natural  to  an 
Ephesian  editor  of  93  a.  d.  as  it  is  unnatural  when  compared 
with  the  real  imphcations  of  the  "  prophecies  "  themselves; 
for  these  distinctly  refer  to  "  the  twelve  Apostles  of  the  Lamb  " 
in  the  third  person.  This  ancient  debate  on  the  authorship  of 
Revelation,  however,  can  never  be  settled  by  appeal  to  tradi- 
tion.   It  belongs  to  internal  criticism. 

In  the  case  of  the  Gospels,  also,  the  author's  name  was  not 
at  first  a  matter  of  public  concern.  Until  other  products  of 
similar  kind  came  into  rival  circulation,  creatmg  the  need  for 
discrimination,  the  Gospel  used  in  any  given  conmiunity  was 
simply  "  the  "  Gospel.  Matthew  is  in  fact  still  quoted  under 
just  this  designation  by  the  Didache  and  Justin  Martyr.  It  is 
exceptional  (significantly  so)  when  enough  interest  is  taken  in 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  a  "  prophecy  "  to  attach  to  it 
the  name  of  "  an  Apostle  of  the  Lord."  Still  more  is  it  signifi- 
cant to  find  even  Gospels  condescenduig  to  be  distinguished  by 
names;  most  of  all  when,  as  in  the  cases  of  our  Mark  and  Luke, 
the  names  are  those  of  men  who  were  not  Apostles,  names 
whose  mention  in  this  connection  can  hardly  be  accounted  for 
unless  in  some  way,  direct  or  indirect,  they  really  had  a  part 
in  the  production  of  the  work. 

Accordingly,  when  in  addition  to  naming  the  author  early 
tradition  positively  affirms  that  the  so-called  Gospel  of  "  Mark" 
appeared  at  Rome  some  time  after  the  death  of  the  chief 
Apostle  to  whom  it  attributes  the  story  related,  the  report  is  by 
no  means  to  be  despised.  As  respects  both  place  and  date  this 
statement  is  not  in  the  interest  of  apologetic;  it  was  rather 
found  inconvenient.  As  respects  the  provenance  it  tells  some- 
thing which  belongs  to  pubhc  knowledge,  something  which  if 


12  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

untrue  could  and  would  meet  contradiction,  unless  the  allega- 
tion were  too  long  delayed;  something  which  later  tradition 
actually  does  its  best  to  counteract  by  aflfirming  for  subsequent 
Gospels  an  origin  in  Palestine  by  direct  undertaking  of  one  or 
more  of  the  original  Apostles. 

Respect  for  tradition  will  be  greatest  where  there  is  least 
evidence  of  an  attempt  to  adapt  it  to  later  opinion.  Unfortu- 
nately the  tradition  regarding  the  provenance  of  Mark  gives 
strong  indications  of  being  later  in  origin  than  the  tradition 
regarding  its  authorship  and  (approximate)  date,  and  seems 
to  be,  in  part,  if  not  wholly,  the  fruit  of  early  conjecture,  em- 
broidering the  meagre  statement  of  older  authorities  with  in- 
genious inference  of  a  nature  tending  to  enhance  the  authority 
of  the  Gospel. 

Scholars  are  well  aware  that  there  is  but  one  really  ancient 
tradition  regarding  the  origin  of  any  of  the  Gospels,  and  that 
single  Gospel  is  not  unnaturally  the  oldest,  Mark.  It  is  the 
tradition  cited  by  Papias  himself  from  an  unnamed  "  Elder  " 
obtained  (apparently)  during  the  period  of  his  enquiries  ante- 
cedent to  the  writing  of  his  Interpretations  of  the  Lord's 
Oracles.  This  period  of  enquiry  probably  did  not  extend  later 
than  117  A.D. 

We  repeat :  Only  one  primitive  tradition  of  Gospel  origins 
exists.  For  in  spite  of  an  enormous  amount  of  darkening  of 
counsel,  what  Papias  states  regarding  Matthew  is  not  a  tradi- 
tion. It  does  not  even  pretend  to  be.  Papias  simply  declares 
that  the  precepts  (Xoyta)  he  proposes  to  expound  were  recorded 
in  "  Hebrew  "  by  Matthew.  In  this  statement  he  merely 
adopts  the  general  assumption  of  his  age  (140-150  a.d.),  an 
assumption  based  on  two  things:  (1)  the  title  Kara  Maddatop;  ^ 
(2)  the  language  of  the  book.  The  assumption,  as  we  all  know, 
is  in  both  elements  demonstrably  contrary  to  fact.    Contrari- 

^  This  title  is  probably  based  on  conjecture  attaching  to  Matt.  9,  9,  in  com- 
parison with  Mark  2,  14.  Matt.  9,  9,  in  turn  rests  on  the  gloss  6  TeXuvrjs  in  the  table 
of  the  apostolate  taken  up  in  10,  3.  The  gloss  is  an  attempt  to  find  room  in  the 
list  for  the  reXuvns,  and  was  probably  intended  to  attach  to  "  Bartholomew." 
It  is  a  practical  parallel  to  many  other  attempts  (e.g.,  of  the  /3  text)  to  meet  the 
same  difl&culty. 


THE  TRADITION  13 

wise,  what  Papias  states  regarding  Mark  is  a  tradition.  It  is 
avowedly  derived  from  "  the  Elder,"  probably  the  same  individ- 
ual from  whom  Eusebius  informs  us  Papias  cited  numerous 
"  traditions  "  (irapaSoaeLs),  and  who  had  the  name  so  common 
in  Palestine  of  "  John."  Elsewhere  ^  we  have  ventured  to 
identify  this  primitive  authority  with  John  of  Jerusalem,  middle 
link  in  the  succession  of  "  Elders  "  in  that  church  between 
James,  the  Lord's  brother  (ob.  62),  and  Judas  (ob.  135).  The 
death  of  this  "  Elder  John,"  whom  Irenaeus  (as  Eusebius  so 
clearly  demonstrates)  had  confounded  with  the  Apostle,  is 
placed  by  Epiphanius  in  a  year  of  probable  martyrdoms  for 
Palestine  when  Trajan  repressed  the  second  Jewish  uprising 
(117  A.D.).  But  the  tradition  which  Papias  reports  must  be 
distinguished  from  the  interpretative  comment  of  Papias'  own 
which  follows  it.  The  tradition  occupies  the  first  part  of  the 
sentence,  including  no  more  than  the  words:  "  Mark,  who  had 
been  (or,  became)  the  epix-qvevrris  of  Peter,  wrote  down  as  much 
as  he  remembered  both  of  the  doings  and  sayings  of  Christ,  but 
not  in  order."  Papias  seems  to  be  employing  this  statement  of 
"  the  Elder  "  to  justify  his  own  partial  rehance  on  a  nonapos- 
tolic  source  (Mark). 

The  precepts  of  the  Lord  (Kupta/cd  X67ia)  which  Papias  in- 
terpreted in  his  Exegesis  ^  were  drawn  from  Matthew.  No 
other  course  is  conceivable;  for  to  Papias,  as  to  his  contempo- 
raries, Matthew  was  "  the  Gospel,"  the  complete  and  apostolic 
record  of  the  things  said  and  done  by  the  Lord  in  their  (chrono- 
logical) order.  However,  Papias  did  feel  justified  in  also  draw- 
ing to  some  extent  from  Mark,  although  he  acknowledges  that 
"  Mark  was  not  a  follower  of  the  Lord,  but  afterwards,  as  I  said 
[in  a  passage  no  longer  extant],  of  Peter."  Papias  defends  his 
use  of  Mark  by  explaining  that  if  (as  the  Elder  had  declared) 
this  evangeHst's  "  order  "  was  inaccurate,  he  may  nevertheless 
be  trusted,  because  while  the  nature  of  Peter's  preaching,  which 
Mark  recorded,  made  chronological  order  impracticable,  the 

1  See  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate,  1912.  ^ 

2  Readings  in  the  mss.  vary  between  singular  and  plural  in  the  title  of  Papias 
work.  He  may  have  given  coUected  "  exegeses"  received  from  "  the  Elders,  or 
he  may  have  given  his  own  "  interpretations  "  (ipuwfiai),  supportmg  them  by 
Palestinian  tradition  ("  the  living  and  abiding  voice  "). 


14  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Elder's  words  implied  that  Mark's  record  of  Peter's  discourses 
was  both  accurate  and  complete.  This  attitude  of  Papias 
toward  Matthew  and  Mark  respectively  corresponds  with  the 
uniform  practice  of  his  age  in  the  use  of  Gospel  material.  It  is 
thus  closely  reflected  by  his  contemporary  Justin,  and  is  indeed 
that  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  generally.  As  between  Synoptic 
parallels,  quotations  are  made  almost  invariably  on  the  basis 
of  Matthew. » 

In  commenting  on  "  the  Elder's  "  account  of  Mark,  Papias, 
we  note,  refers  not  to  anything  related  by  "  the  Elder,"  or  in- 
deed by  any  informant.  He  refers  merely  to  a  previous  state- 
ment of  his  own  ("as  I  said  "),  a  statement  not  preserved 
among  the  extant  fragments.  In  this  non-extant  reference 
Papias  had  discussed  the  association  of  Mark  with  Peter. 
Zahn  has  shown  ^  that  his  contention  was  probably  based  on 
1  Peter  5,  13.  For  in  spite  of  Harnack's  exposure  ^  of  some 
fallacies,  the  substance  of  Zahn's  contention  remains  highly 
probable.  It  may  be  stated  as  follows:  We  may  co-ordinate 
Eusebius'  statement  in  H.  E.  iii.  39,  16,  that  Papias  "  used 
testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,"  with  his  earher 
statement  in  H.  E.  ii,  15,  2,  coupling  "  Papias  "  with  Clement 
of  Alexandria  as  testifjdng  that  Mark  was  written  in  Rome 
and  that  this  is  indicated  by  (Peter),  when  he  calls  the  city 
symbolically  Babylon,  an  obvious  reference  to  1  Peter  5,  13. 
Zahn's  reasoning  is  to  the  effect  that  Papias,  as  well  as 
Clement  (Hypotyposes,  cited  by  Eusebius,  H.  E.  vi.  14,  6), 
assigned  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  to  "  Rome 
itself  ";  and  that,  of  the  two  writers  appealed  to,  it  was  not 
Clement  but  Papias  who  based  this  assertion  on  1  Peter  5,  13. 
For,  while  Clement's  testimony  to  the  Roman  origin  of  Mark 

^  Note  the  comment  of  Swete  (Commentary  on  Mark,  p.  xxxiv)  on  the  com- 
plaint of  Victor  of  Antioch  (ob.  ca.  550  a.d.)  of  the  entire  lack  of  commentaries  on 
Mark.  "  The  cause  is  doubtless  partly  to  be  sought  in  the  prestige  attaching  to 
the  first  Gospel,  which  was  regarded  as  the  immediate  work  of  an  Apostle,  and  the 
greater  fulness  of  both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  Moreover,  St.  Mark  was  be- 
lieved even  by  Irenaeus  to  have  been  written  after  St.  Matthew." 

»  Einleitung  (2d  ed.),  II,  pp.  19  f.,  214  f.;  cf.  pp.  22,  35. 

3  "Pseudo-Papianisches,"  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  N.  T.  Wissenschaft,  III  (1902), 
p.  159. 


THE  TRADITION  15 

does  form  part  of  his  comments  on  1  Peter  5,  13  (showing  his 
dependence  on  Papias),  Clement  himself  nowhere  adopts  the 
"  ground-idea  "  that  the  Epistle  was  written  from  Rome. 

The  argmnent  that  Clement  derived  the  Gospel  from  Rome, 
but  not  the  Epistle,  is  unconvincing.  But  Papias  "  confirmed  " 
{(Tvveinixaprvpel)  the  story  of  Clement's  Hypotyposes,  and  to 
exclude  from  this  confirmation  his  location  of  it  at  "  Rome"  is 
violent.  W^  may  therefore  confidently  attribute  to  Papias  the 
statement  that  Mark  was  written  in  Rome.  We  can  also  say 
with  confidence  that  Papias  did  not  base  this  statement  upon 
tradition  (whatever  independent  knowledge  he  may  have  had 
as  to  the  provenance  of  the  Gospel),  but  upon  an  allegorical 
interpretation  of  the  words  h  BafivXcopt  in  1  Peter  5,  13.  Later 
writers  such  as  Irenaeus  and  Clement  merely  repeat  and  elabo- 
rate the  statement.  These  two  writers  are  in  fact  independ- 
ently known  to  use  Papias'  work  for  such  information,  and  could 
not  be  expected  either  to  ignore  or  contradict  his  statement 
regarding  the  provenance  of  Mark.  On  this  point  they  have 
nothing  of  their  own  to  tell.  They  do  show,  however,  a  natural 
disposition  to  enhance  the  importance  of  the  Gospel  by  en- 
larging upon  the  testimony,  and  to  make  the  Apostle's  responsi- 
bility for  it  as  great  as  possible  without  actual  contradiction 
of  Papias'  words.  Thus  Irenaeus  repeats  his  predecessor's 
statement  for  substance,  taking  the  aorist  yevonepos  in  its 
natural  sense  as  explanatory  both  of  the  qualifications  and  Umi- 
tations  of  Mark.  He  had  been  (said  Papias)  Peter's  epixrjvevTrjs. 
Irenaeus  takes  this  to  mean  the  "  translator  "  of  Peter's  oral 
discourses.  So  do  all  subsequent  writers.  We  are  justified  in 
assuming  that  they  correctly  understood  the  Greek  term;  for 
Papias  himself  indicates  that  he  also  had  the  same  idea  by 
offsetting  the  authenticated  and  (as  it  were)  ofiicial  "  transla- 
tion "  of  Peter's  discourses  with  the  statement  that  Matthew's 
written  record  of  the  \6yi,a  had  no  official  "interpreter." 
Matthew  left  them  "  in  the  Hebrew,"  and  "  everyone  trans- 
lated them  as  best  he  could."  It  was,  indeed,  in  part  this  lack 
of  authoritative  rendering  for  the  Apostle's  record  which  justi- 
fied Papias'  own  "  translations  "  {kpix-qvelai),  and  to  these  he 
"  did  not  hesitate  to  subjoin  "  authenticated,  autochthonous 


16  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

traditions  as  a  defense  against  arbitrary  and  "  alien  "  perver- 
sions. For  he  had  no  higher  respect  than  his  successor  Irenaeus 
for  Gnostic  "  twisters  of  the  Lord's  oracles  "  (paBcovpyovvTes 
TCL  \6yLa  Tov  Kvplov).  These  were  "bad  interpreters  of  things 
well  said  "  (KaKol  e^rjyriTal  tC)v  KaXcos  dprjixivicv).^  In  the  Greek 
no  other  sense  can  be  obtained  from  the  statement  than  that 
Mark  accompanied  Peter  for  the  purpose  of  translating  his  dis- 
courses (whether  orally  and  immediately,  or  subsequently  and 
in  writing)  into  another  language.  This,  then,  may  be  set  down 
as  the  conception  entertained  by  Papias. 

Whether  "  the  Elder  "  (who  in  our  view  spoke  Aramaic  and 
was  not  directly  accessible  to  Papias)  had  really  in  mind  this 
kind  of  relation  between  Mark  and  Peter  is  at  least  doubtful; 
for  it  involves  great  difficulties,  as  Zahn  and  others  have  shown. 
Indeed  the  title  of  "  translator  "  is  unknown  to  the  New 
Testament.  As  a  number  of  critics  have  pointed  out,^  the 
Elder  may  have  used  the  word  |nj"iino,  still  current  in  the 
modern  form  of  "  dragoman,"  whose  office  is  akin  to  that  of 
courier.  Papias,  as  may  be  seen  by  his  repeated  references  to 
"  translation,"  was  concerned  about  this  factor  of  true  exegesis. 
So  perhaps  was  his  Gnostic  predecessor  Basilides,  who  claimed 
the  authority  of  Glaukias,  another  interpreter  (epfirjvevs)  of 
Peter.  Papias,  as  we  shall  see,  takes  the  reference  in  1  Peter  5, 
13  to  prove  a  renewed  association  of  Mark  with  Peter  at  Rome, 
after  his  association  with  Paul.  Of  the  credibility  of  this  we 
must  enquire  later;  but  to  reason  thus  from  the  mere  report  of 
a  report  to  the  exact  term  used  by  the  Elder  is  precarious  in  the 
extreme.  We  have  no  reason  to  impute  to  him  the  idea  drawn 
by  Papias  from  First  Peter,  and  even  if  he  used  the  exact  equiv- 
alent of  the  Greek  term  epixrjvevTrjs,  it  need  imply  no  more  than 
an  association  with  Peter  corresponding  to  the  expression  of 
Acts  13,  5,  elxov  8e  'Icoavvrjv  v-n-qpir-qv,  and  to  Luke  1,  2,  where 
under  virrfpeTai  tov  X670U  the  same  Mark  is  certainly  included, 
as  well  as  to  2  Tim.  4,  11,  where  Paul  describes  the  function  of 
Mark  as  diaKovla.    This  is  in  fact  the  rank  and  office  which 

^  Irenaeus,  Haer.  i.  1,  1. 

^  So,  e.g.,  Mofifatt,  Introduction  to  the  Netv  Testament  (2d  ed.),  P- 186,  note  1, 
citing  Schlatter,  Kirche  in  Jerusalem. 


THE  TRADITION  17 

every  New  Testament  reference  would  lead  us  to  ascribe  to 
Mark.  We  might  for  example  expect  that  "  when  Peter  came 
to  Antioch  "  (Gal.  2,  11),  after  the  departure  of  Paul  and  Silas 
on  the  second  missionary  journey,  the  Apostle  would  take  with 
him  Mark  in  the  same  capacity  of  uTrrypeVrys  in  which  he  had 
previously  served  Paul  and  Barnabas  on  the  first  part  of  the 
first  missionary  journey,  and  subsequently  had  served  Bar- 
nabas alone.  In  general  this  relation  of  Mark  to  Peter  would 
be  probable  from  the  references  in  Acts  10-12.  In  particular 
it  is  made  almost  unavoidable  by  the  fact  that,  just  before  this 
journey  of  Peter,  Mark  had  returned  to  Jerusalem  from  Pam- 
phylia  more  or  less  under  a  cloud  (Acts  13,  13);  whereas  im- 
mediately after  it  (Acts  15,  38)  he  is  back  again  in  Antioch, 
whence  he  accompanies  Barnabas  his  "  cousin  "  (Col.  4,  10)  to 
Cyprus.  He  can  hardly  have  revisited  Antioch  on  his  own  ac- 
count. If  he  accompanied  Peter  it  was  doubtless  in  his  usual 
capacity  of  virrjpeTrjs,  or  dLCLKOvos. 

We  therefore  quite  agree  with  Zahn  that  the  words  of  John 
the  Elder  are  stretched  wholly  beyond  their  legitimate  meaning 
when  taken  as  applying  to  a  preaching  of  Peter  at  Rome  in 
Aramaic,  "  interpreted  "  by  Mark  into  Greek  (or  Latin !). 
Zahn  appears  to  be  wholly  justified  in  maintaining  that  the 
association  of  Apostle  and  epiJ.vJ^evrr]s-pi'\)nf2  referred  to  by 
"  the  Elder  "  does  not  pass  the  limits  in  time  of  that  period  in 
Peter's  career  known  to  us  from  Acts  1-15,  during  most  of 
which  Mark  was  a  youth  in  his  mother  Mary's  house  in  Jeru- 
salem. 

It  may  or  may  not  be  possible  to  give  the  Elder's  words  the 
"figurative"  sense  proposed  by  Zahn:  "Mark,  who  (m  so 
doing)  became  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down,"  etc.;  but 
it  is  certain  that  they  cannot  be  used  in  support  of  any  other 
association  of  Mark  with  Peter  than  that  of  which  we  read  in 
Acts.  The  later  interpretations  of  it  which  begin  with  Papias' 
attempt  to  build  on  1  Peter  5,  13,  are  responsible  for  the  con- 
tradiction and  difficulty.  At  this  point,  however,  we  take  leave 
of  Zahn,  who  refuses  to  admit  that  the  misconception  can  go 
back  to  Papias  and  ascribes  it  all  to  the  misunderstanding  of 
later  Fathers. 


18  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Returning,  then,  to  the  later  development  of  the  tradition, 
we  see  Papias'  personal  contribution  to  have  been  the  locating 
of  Mark's  service  as  ipurjvevTrjs  to  Peter  at  Rome.  The  associa- 
tion affirmed  by  "  the  Elder  "  guaranteed  Mark's  qualifications 
as  evangehst.  The  more  definite  specification  of  its  date  and 
circumstances  greatly  enhanced  these  qualifications  by  sug- 
gesting the  completeness  and  accuracy  of  his  record  of  Peter's 
teaching.  In  fact,  Papias  takes  up  every  minutest  detail  of  the 
Elder's  testimony  seriatim  and  dwells  upon  it.  6a a  etivrjiibvev- 
aev  had  said  the  Elder.  This  (so  Papias  argues)  imphed  that 
Mark's  record  of  the  precepts  (X67ta),  while  less  complete  than 
Matthew,  "  omitted  nothing  that  he  had  heard."  Obviously 
the  second  Gospel  cannot  compare  in  completeness  of  recorded 
XoYia  with  the  first.  But  Papias  will  not  admit  that  Mark  has 
any  real  defect.  As  a  record  of  Peter's  discourses  it  is  complete. 
d/cpi/3cos  eypaypev,  the  Elder  had  testified.  Papias  reiterates  that 
Mark  "  made  no  error  {ovbkv  rnxaprev)"  and  "  was  careful  to  set 
down  nothing  falsely."  Per  contra,  the  Elder  had  undeniably 
declared  that  Mark's  "  order  "  was  at  fault  {ov  nevroL  ra^ei). 
Papias  therefore  explains,  limits,  minimizes,  this  admitted  short- 
coming by  every  means  in  his  power.  He  depicts  the  circum- 
stances of  the  preaching  which  Mark  heard.  Unlike  Matthew, 
whose  design  of  making  a  systematic  compend  of  the  Lord's 
precepts  (avPTa^Ls  rcbp  KvpiaKcou  Xoycov  —  var.  Xoyloov)  is  self- 
evident  from  the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name,  and  who  may 
therefore  be  regarded  as  furnishing  the  basis  of  comparison, 
Peter  merely  related  such  anecdotes  as  were  practically  "  suited 
to  the  occasion  "  (ttpos  rds  xpetas).  Mark's  record,  therefore,  is 
even  on  this  score  "  without  fault,"  since  its  order  is  at  least  a 
correct  transcript  of  the  preaching  of  the  great  Apostle.  The 
Romans  might  be  supposed  to  have  previously  obtained  from 
Matthew  their  knowledge  of  the  precepts  (X67ta),  the  "  com- 
mandments (ivToXal)  delivered  by  the  Lord  to  the  faith,"  as 
Papias  terms  them  in  the  preceding  context.  This  supposition 
is  in  fact  actually  made  by  his  transcriber,  Irenaeus. 

In  point  of  "  order  "  there  is  in  reality  a  very  striking  differ- 
ence between  Matthew  and  Mark.  Matt.  4-14  completely 
reconstructs  the  Markan  order  of  the  ministry  in   Gahlee 


THE  TRADITION  19 

(though  only  to  make  it  more  artificial) .  Papias  seems  to  regard 
the  one  Gospel  (Matthew)  as  representing  a  systematic  "  com- 
pend  of  the  Lord's  oracles  "  {avvra^Ls  tcop  KvpiaKihv  Xoyio^v), 
whereas  the  other  (Mark)  represents  a  mere  collocation  of 
anecdotes  selected  for  practical  edification  on  various  occasions 
(Xcx^€j/ra  rf  irpaxdevTa;  irpos  tcls  xpetas).  This  shows  quite  re- 
markable appreciation  for  so  primitive  a  critic  of  the  difference 
in  form  and  structure  between  the  two  Gospels;  but  at  the 
same  time  it  confirms  the  impression  we  get  from  his  use  of 
First  John,  Revelation,  and  First  Peter,  that  like  the  rest  of  his 
generation  (and  indeed  inevitably)  he  was  after  all  in  the  main 
dependent  upon  written  sources,  the  ''  books  "  which  he  affects 
to  disparage. 

In  thus  falling  back  upon  the  Elder's  testimony  as  to  Mark's 
lack  of  "  order  "  (ou  ij,4ptol  ra^et)  Papias  is  not,  as  Moffatt 
strangely  alleges,  referring  to  "  style  rather  than  chronological 
sequence";^  for  it  is  chronological  sequence  only,  and  not 
style,  which  would  be  affected  by  the  difference  between  being 
''  a  follower  of  the  Lord  "  and  being  "  afterwards  a  follower  of 
Peter."  Papias  is  merely  excusing  Mark's  inability  to  relate 
Kade^rjs  (as  Luke  purports  to  do  2)  by  the  fact  (implied  in  the 
aorist  yevofxevos)  that  at  the  time  of  writing  his  association  with 
Peter  had  ceased.  He  elaborates  this  impHcation  of  the  Elder's 
statement  by  reference  to  some  no  longer  extant  affirmation  of 
his  own,  based  (as  we  have  seen)  on  1  Peter  5,  13.  For  (as  we 
have  also  seen)  the  question  of  the  "  order  "  (ra^ts)  had  very 
early,  and  quite  unavoidably,  become  a  matter  of  serious  con- 
cern. The  disappearance  of  first-hand  testimony  would  in- 
evitably bring  this  about  in  the  absence  of  written  records. 

What  then  was  the  real  meaning  of  the  participle  yevofievos? 
Irenaeus  quite  naturally  infers  that  death  had  removed  Peter 
at  the  time  of  Mark's  writing;  otherwise  the  evangelist  could 
have  learned  the  true  order  by  enquiry  from  him.   Later  writers, 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  188-189. 

2  Neither  Kade^rjs  nor  rd^ei  apart  from  the  context  need  mean  more  than  "  con- 
secutively." Spoken  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  the  "  order  "  implied  would 
be  the  conventional.  Spoken  of  the  events  of  sacred  story,  no  other  order  can  be 
thought  of  than  that  of  real  occurrence,  especially  when  such  corrections  of  Mark's 
order  are  made  as  that  in  Luke  3,  18-20. 


20  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

such  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,  dislike  to  admit  a  post-apostolic 
origin  for  the  Gospel.    They  therefore  maintain  that  the  Apostle 
was  still  alive,  as  the  ambiguity  of  the  expression  yevbixevos  al- 
lows.   Their  assumption,  however,  is  shown  to  be  incorrect  by 
the  difficulty  in  which  they  at  once  find  themselves  involved. 
They  can  no  longer  explain  Mark's  failure  to  avail  himself  of 
Peter's  knowledge.     Clement's  statement,  for  example,  that 
Peter  "  learned  of  "  Mark's  undertaking,  but  "  neither  directly 
forbade  nor  encouraged  it,"  is  transparently  inadequate.     It 
does  not  remove  the  difficulty,  but  merely  restates  it.    The  en- 
quirer returns  with  the  further  question.  Why  did  the  Apostle 
manifest  such  indifference?    Eusebius  seeks  to  improve  upon 
Clement   by   making  Peter's   information   come   from   "  the 
Spirit,"  and  by  adding  (as  against  seeming  indifference)  that 
he  "  commended  the  Gospel  to  the  churches."    But  Mark's 
failure  to  consult  Peter  still  remains  a  mystery.     The  Latin 
Adumbrations  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  make  the  auditors,  at 
whose  solicitation  Mark  recorded  the  words  of  Peter,  members 
of  the  imperial  court  at  Rome  of  equestrian  rank.    Finally  the 
late  Synopsis  Scripturae  of  Pseudo-Athanasius  tries  to  meet  the 
objection,  and  at  the  same  time  make  the  apostolic  sanction  of 
the  Gospel  letter-perfect,  by  changing  the  preaching  of  Peter 
to  dictation.    But  now  what  is  gained  as  respects  accuracy  of 
transcription  is  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  unreUeved 
contradiction  of  Matthew  as  respects  order  of  events. 

The  apologetic  motive  for  these  later  changes  in  the  tradition 
is  so  transparent  ^  that  it  would  not  be  worth  while  to  record 
them  were  it  not  for  its  close  correspondence  with  the  earlier. 
For  we  obtain  thus  a  clear  view  of  the  trend,  while  we  pursue 
an  unbroken  line  backward  from  the  later  writers  to  Clement, 
from  Clement  to  Papias,  and  from  Papias  to  the  ''  Elder." 
In  all  cases  save  one,  Papias'  theory  of  the  provenance  based 
on  1  Peter  5,  13  is  adopted.  "  The  Elder's  "  indefinite  state- 
ment that  Mark  "  had  been  "  an  ipix-qvevTiis  of  Peter,  becomes 

^  Cf.  Swete  (op.  cifc.,  p.  xxvi):  "Later  forms  of  the  story  exaggerate  St.  Peter's 
part  in  the  production.  Even  Origen  seems  to  represent  the  Apostle  as  having 
personally  controlled  the  work  (ws  Ilerpos  v<t>-nyqaaro  avrQ),  whilst  Jerome  (ad 
Hedib.)  says  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  was  written  'Petro  narrante  et  illo 
scribente.'  " 


THE  TRADITION  21 

progressively  in  later  development  a  more  and  more  detailed 
description  of  Peter's  preaching  at  Rome,  with  Mark  in  attend- 
ance as  reporter  of  the  discourse.  In  reality  there  is  nothing 
back  of  Papias  save  ev  Ba/SuXcoj/t  in  1  Peter  5,  13  to  suggest  that 
Peter  ever  set  foot  in  Rome.  To  this  iv  Ba/JuXcoj/t  we  must  return 
presently,  but  meantime  a  word  must  be  devoted  to  the  solitary 
variant  in  the  tradition  of  Roman  provenance  for  the  Gospel. 

The  single  exception  is  the  statement  of  Chrysostom  (Hom. 
1  in  Matt.)  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Egypt  at  the  re- 
quest of  his  hearers  there.  As  Zahn  quite  justly  observes, 
this  sohtary  variation  is  too  late  in  date,  and  too  obviously  de- 
pendent on  the  ordinary  earlier  form  (hearers  requesting  the 
work)  to  deserve  our  credence.  It  merely  adapts  the  usual 
story  to  the  Alexandrian  episcopal  succession,  which  begins 
(not  perhaps  without  historical  reason)  with  "  Mark."  More- 
over its  origin  is  easily  accounted  for.  Swete  ^  very  reasonably 
explains  it  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  statement  of  Eusebius 
(H.  E.  ii.  16)  regarding  the  work  of  Mark  in  Egypt  in  "  preach- 
ing the  gospel  of  which  he  is  a  compiler  "  {MapKov  TpGirbv  <paat,v 
eirl  rrjs  AiyvirTOv  areiKanevov  to  evayyeXtov  6  drj  (xweypaxJ/aTO 
Kripv^ai).  The  fact  that  the  same  statement  has  led  Jerome 
(Vir.  ill.  c.  8)  to  declare  that  Mark  "  took  up  the  Gospel  which 
he  had  compiled  and  went  to  Egypt  "  (adsumpto  itaque 
evangeho  quod  ipse  confecerat  perrexit  Aegyptum)  strongly 
corroborates  Swete's  suggestion.  The  same  ambiguous  state- 
ment very  obviously  underUes  this  more  cautious  declaration, 
as  well  as  that  of  Epiphanius  (Haer.  51,  6)  that  after  writing  the 
Gospel  at  Rome,  Mark  was  sent  by  Peter  to  Egypt.^ 

The  possibihty  of  a  sojourn  of  Mark  in  Alexandria  is  of 
course  entirely  open;  and  the  beUef,  as  we  have  seen,  gave 
rise  to  a  late  modification  in  the  usual  form  of  the  tradition  of 
the  provenance  of  the  Gospel.  The  two  questions  are  mutually 
independent;  but  it  will  be  worth  while  to  refer  to  the  cautious 
language  of  Swete,  who  in  his  well  known  Commentary '  leaves 
open  the  possibiUty  of  such  a  sojourn  between  the  time  when 

^  Commentary  on  Mark,  p.  xxxix. 

2  kv  TcbjuB  eiriT-peTTtrai  to  thayyekiov  e/c^ecr^at,  Kai    ypa\f^as   djrocrTtXXerot  vird  rov 
ayiov  Uerpov  ets  Tj)f  tuv  AiyvTrricof  xwpav. 
^  Pp.  xviii  ff. 


22  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Mark  is  last  seen  in  Acts  leaving  Antioch  for  Cyprus  as  attend- 
ant on  Barnabas  (Acts  15,  39),  and  his  reappearance  some  ten 
years  later  in  Paul's  entourage.  Swete  would  account  for  the 
"  widespread  series  of  traditions  connecting  St.  Mark  with  the 
foundation  of  the  Alexandrian  church  "  by  the  supposition  that 
Paul's  original  commendation  of  Mark  to  the  churches  of  the 
Lycus  Valley,  referred  to  in  the  words  xept  ov  eXa/Sere  evToXas 
(Col.  4,  10),  was  occasioned  by  the  proposal  of  Mark,  then  still 
in  Cyprus,  to  visit  these  churches.  This  visit,  Swete  suggests, 
may  have  been  abandoned  for  the  mission  to  Egypt,  whence 
Mark  had  proceeded  to  Rome.  Swete,  however,  is  properly 
expUcit  in  pointing  out  that  this  whole  possible  episode  of  a 
stay  in  Alexandria  belongs  solely  to  the  "  personal  history  of 
Mark,"  and  has  no  relation  (at  least  in  the  period  of  authentic 
tradition)  to  the  question  of  the  provenance  of  the  Gospel.  In 
the  second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries  all  parties  are  agreed  in 
making  the  view  of  Papias  fundamental.  And  with  much 
reason,  for  Papias  was  the  fountainhead  of  tradition  regarding 
Gospel  origins,  having  set  himself,  at  just  the  critical  juncture 
when  authentic  Palestinian  tradition  was  being  destroyed  by 
the  dispersal  of  the  mother  church  in  135  a.d.,  to  vindicate  and 
preserve  the  apostolic  Tapadocns  as  a  bulwark  against  Gnostic 
vagary.  As  regards  ancient  testimony  to  the  provenance  of 
our  oldest  Gospel  it  is  certainly  true  that  "  all  roads  lead  to 
Rome."  But  not  beyond  the  great  junction  point  of  Papias. 
That  Papias  affirmed  this  we  have  already  seen  reason  to  be- 
lieve. It  would  also  appear  that  he  based  his  statement  on  the 
reference  to  "  Babylon  "  in  1  Peter  5,  13.  But  was  this  his  only 
ground?  Did  the  belief  rest  wholly  on  the  Scripture?  Or  was 
not  the  Scripture,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  at  least  in  part  an 
afterthought,  confirming  rather  than  originating  belief? 

Unfortunately  for  our  present  enquiry  no  reference  to  Rome 
appears  in  that  ancient  and  apparently  trustworthy  tradition 
which  Papias  reports  as  from  "  the  Elder."  If  such  there  was, 
it  formed  part  of  a  highly  apologetic  and  controversial  com- 
ment, whose  aim  was  to  secure  respect  for  a  certain  nonapostolic 
Gospel  (Mark)  which  the  author  of  the  Exegeses  thinks  worthy 
of  use  alongside  of  the  recognized  apostolic  standard  (Mat- 


THE  TRADITION  23 

thew).  Besides  Matthew's  recognized  awra^ts  rdv  KvpiaKdv 
\oyLO}v,  Papias  has  determined  to  make  use  of  Mark's  dTOfivr]- 
novevixara  of  the  preaching  of  Peter.  He  has  a  tradition  of  "  the 
Elder  "  to  cite  in  its  favor,  but  in  itself  the  Elder's  endorsement 
of  Mark  is  not  unqualified.  It  has  almost  a  patronizing  tone. 
Papias  repeats  and  elaborates  upon  it  to  make  it  apparent  that 
nevertheless  Mark  may  be  accepted  as  an  "  errorless  "  tran- 
script of  the  preaching  of  Peter.  The  description  of  the  preach- 
ing agrees  with  what  Eusebius  describes  (H.  E.  ii,  15,  2)  as 
witness  of  Papias  in  confirmation  {(TwewiixapTvpel)  of  Clement, 
that  Mark  attended  Peter,  and  that  in  the  Epistle  "  which  they 
say  was  composed  at  Rome  "  Peter  indicates  this  city  figura- 
tively in  the  words  of  1  Peter  5,  13.  In  the  clause,  "  in  his 
Former  Epistle  which  they  say  was  composed  at  Rome," 
Eusebius  is  not  quoting  Papias,  of  course,  but  unspecified  tra- 
dition {ct)a<7'Lv) ;  but  we  cannot  escape  the  clear  statement  that 
Papias  declared  the  word  "  Babylon  "  in  1  Peter  5,  13  to  be 
used  symbolically  (rpoTrtKcorepoj')  for  Rome.  Whether,  there- 
fore, this  exegesis  represents  Papias'  only  reason  for  locating  the 
association  of  Mark  with  Peter  at  Rome,  or  whether  it  be  in 
addition  to  some  other,  perhaps  a  reason  of  greater  moment,  we 
must  at  all  events  follow  up  this  road  and  see  whether  or  not 
the  Epistle  in  question  really  does  imply  it. 

The  passage,  1  Peter  5, 13,  makes  reference  to  Mark  in  mani- 
festly symbolic  language  as  the  writer's  (spiritual)  "  son."  It 
refers  to  the  Christian  brotherhood  whence  greetings  are  sent 
to  the  persecuted  Pauline  churches  of  Asia  Minor  as  their 
"  sister-election  (aweKKeKTri)  in  Babylon."  What  the  author 
really  means  by  this  sjnubolism  (for  some  part  at  least  is  sym- 
boHc)  we  must  enquire  for  ourselves  hereafter.  Papias,  in  his 
interpretation,  is  clearly  influenced  by  the  Revelation  of  John 
(cc.  16-19),  a  book  by  which  (as  Eusebius  plainly  indicates)  he 
and  his  successors  down  to  Irenaeus  were  greatly  affected.  In- 
deed, we  are  credibly  informed  by  a  writer  ^  who  seems  to  have 
used  the  work  of  Papias  that  he  vouched  for  its  d^toTrioroj/.    In 

1  Andreas  of  Caesarea  in  Apoc,  preface  and  c.  34,  sermon  12.  By  error,  An- 
dreas' transcript  of  Rev.  12,  9  is  included  in  the  Lightfoot-Harmer  edition  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  as  part  of  the  quotation  from  Papias  numbered  Fragt.  xi. 


24  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

all  probability  Papias  regarded  the  book  in  the  same  light  as 
his  contemporary  Justin,  who  cites  it  (probably  in  dependence 
on  Papias)  as  "  a  vision  granted  to  one  of  ourselves,  an  Apostle 
of  the  Lord  named  John."  Rev.  16,  19-19,  10  is  the  classic  pas- 
sage for  the  application  to  Rome  of  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  against  "  Babylon  ";  and  Papias  is  of  all  men  the 
one  we  should  expect  to  apply  this  key  (correctly  or  otherwise) 
to  the  symbolism  of  1  Peter  5,  13.  Against  the  supposition  of 
its  correctness,  and  in  fact  against  the  whole  idea  of  an  associa- 
tion of  Mark  with  Peter  at  Rome,  are  the  notorious  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  this  ardently  defended  belief. 

For  the  only  ancient  support  of  a  sojourn  of  Peter  at  Rome 
is  the  passage  now  under  consideration,  interpreted  as  Papias 
interprets  it.^  Peter  certainly  had  not  been  at  Rome  through- 
out the  period  covered  by  the  Pauline  Epistles,  still  less  had 
Mark  been  his  minister  there.  Did  he  go  to  Rome  after  Paul's 
death,  and  there  draw  to  himself  Paul's  former  associates  and 
helpers,  Silvanus  and  Mark?  This  is  what  all  defenders  of  the 
authenticity  of  First  Peter  from  Papias  to  Sir  William  Ramsay 
would  have  us  beheve.  I  need  hardly  add  that  "  there  are 
many  adversaries." 

Present  limitations  forbid  our  entering  fully  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  authenticity  of  First  Peter.  Briefly  let  me  acknowl- 
edge that  continued  study  and  reflection  leads  me  more  and 
more  definitely  toward  the  more  radical  of  the  alternatives  left 
open  eighteen  years  ago  in  my  Introduction.  0.  D.  Foster's 
study  on  the  Literary  Relations  of  First  Peter  ^  shows  the  line 
of  proof  which  convinces  me  that  the  epistle  cannot  be  earlier 
than  the  persecution  of  Domitian,  a  date  which  even  Ramsay 
admits  as  intrinsically  the  most  probable.  The  situation  the 
writer  of  it  confronts  is  that  of  85  to  95  a.d.,  and  to  its  "  fiery 

1  Clement  of  Rome  (5,  4,  5)  and  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (ap.  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii, 
15,  8)  conjoin  the  martyrdoms  of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  Clement,  at  least,  does  not 
imply  that  both  took  place  at  Rome.  Witnesses  from  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, such  as  Dionysius  and  Caius,  are  too  late  to  be  regarded  as  independent. 
For  a  parallel  instance  of  inference  from  First  Peter  as  sole  apparent  basis  for  jour- 
neys attributed  to  the  Apostle,  see  Eusebius,  H.  E.  iii,  1.  Dionysius  (ibid,  ii,  25) 
even  makes  Peter  joint  founder  with  Paul  of  the  church  in  Corinth  (!),  appar- 
ently on  the  basis  of  1  Cor.  1,  12. 

2  Yale  University  Press,  1913. 


THE  TRADITION  25 

trial  "  we  may  well  refer  the  apostasies  acknowledged  by  some 
of  the  victims  of  PUny  in  this  same  region,  who  in  112  a.d. 
testified  that  they  had  renounced  this  faith  "  twenty-five  years 
ago  "  (Epist.  96,  6,  ad  Trajan.).  A  date  ca.  87  a.d.  is  fatal  to 
Petrine  authorship. 

On  the  other  hand,  critical  surgery  cannot  rescue  moral  at 
the  cost  of  literary  integrity.  Harnack's  attempt  against  the 
begin aing  and  end  of  the  Epistle  is  inadmissible,  because  the 
severed  parts  attest  organic  unity  with  the  trunk,  and  vice 
versa.  From  the  ground  their  blood  cries  out  against  him. 
There  remains  no  alternative  but  pseudonymity;  and  this  has 
confirmation  from  the  very  elements  we  are  now  discussing. 
For  in  1  Peter  5,  13  symbolism  is  undeniably  employed.  The 
writer  shrouds  his  entourage  and  his  place  of  writing  in  mystery. 
Like  the  self-styled  "  John  "  who  addresses  the  endangered 
churches  of  Asia  from  "  the  Isle  of  Patmos  "  where  he  sojourns 
"  for  the  word  of  God  and  the  testimony  of  Jesus,"  so  ''  Peter  " 
writes  from  the  midst  of  the  church  "  in  Babylon,  elect  together 
with  you."  Application  of  the  mask  of  symboHsm  to  the 
specific  point  of  entourage  and  provenance  is  the  classic 
symptom  of  pseudonymity.  The  reason  is  self-evident.  To 
say  plainly  "  Rome,"  or  "  Ephesus,"  would  raise  embarrassing 
questions  of  fact. 

Taking  First  Peter,  then,  to  be  certainly  earlier  than  Revela- 
tion, but  with  great  probability  later  than  the  death  of  both 
Paul  and  Peter,  what  will  be  the  natural  interpretation  of  the 
symbolism  at  its  beginning  and  end? 

"  Babylon  "  in  1  Peter  5,  13  is  certainly  no  less  symboUc  in 
use  than  aweKXeKTr]  and  6  vlos  ixov  in  the  same  verse,  and  the  term 
avveKXeKTr]  corresponds  with  the  e/cXe/crot  TrapevrtSr^/iot  dLaairopas 
of  1,  1,  "  the  elect  of  the  dispersion."  The  latter  are  the  re- 
cipients of  the  epistle,  the  Paufine  churches  of  Asia  Minor  now 
exposed  to  the  full  force  of  a  fiery  persecution.  Indeed  this 
persecution  may  well  be  the  same  which  the  author  of  Hebrews 
anticipates  in  a  letter  probably  sent  shortly  before  in  the  re- 
verse du-ection.  The  former  group,  who  join  with  the  writer  of 
the  epistle  and  speak  through  him  words  of  encouragement  and 
support,  correspond  to  one  great  branch  of  Judaism  in  the 


26  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

period  whose  beginning  is  marked  by  the  Deutero-Isaian  songs, 
the  ''  captivity  "  in  Babylon.  As  in  Israel  according  to  the 
flesh,  so  also  in  the  Christian  commonwealth,  the  two  groups  of 
exiles,  the  "  captivity  "  in  Babylon  (cf.  Rev.  18,  4)  and  the 
"dispersion"  (or  "sowing";  see  verses  23-25)  among  the 
Gentiles  are  "  elect  sisters."  Both  look  forward  to  a  common 
deliverance  and  a  joint  inheritance  in  the  day  of  redemption. 
The  author  of  the  epistle  avails  himself  of  this  classic  symbohsm 
of  Jewish  literature  not  only  in  5,  13,  but  also  in  1,  1.  It  is  well 
suited  to  his  purpose  of  bringing  two  great  branches  of  the 
Christian  church,  the  "  brotherhood  throughout  the  world  " 
(d5eX06r?7s  ev  tQ  Koafio)),  into  relations  of  mutual  support,  sym- 
pathy, and  encouragement. 

For  this  purpose  the  personal  names  also  are  appropriately 
chosen.  "  Silvanus  "  was  joint  founder  with  Paul  of  some  of 
these  Asian  communities.  "  Mark  "  had  been  Paul's  inter- 
mediary with  at  least  one  of  them  (Col.  4,  10).  But  most  of 
all  the  name  of  "  Peter  "  was  well-nigh  indispensable,  and  in  an 
age  wherein  pseudonymity  is  habitual  in  writings  for  edification 
of  this  type  it  would  raise  no  scruple  or  protest. 

No  suggested  name  of  inferior  authority  ^  meets  the  require- 
ments implied  in  the  epistle  itself.  Only  some  elder  of  elders 
and  shepherd  of  shepherds  to  the  whole  flock  of  Christ  could 
appropriately  exhort  the  church  leaders  of  so  many  provinces 
to  the  steadfastness  of  martyrdom.  As  such  speaks  the  "  fellow- 
«lder  and  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  "  in  1  Peter  5,  1-5. 
Again,  it  belongs  not  to  every  new  convert  to  commend  Sil- 
vanus, Paul's  yoke-fellow,  as  "  faithful  in  my  estimation  " 
(5,  12);  least  of  all  to  endorse  the  gospel  preached  by  Paul  as 
"  the  true  grace  of  God."  Such  a  message  to  such  recipients 
would  seem  presumptuous,  the  commendation  of  Paul's  fellow- 
worker  patronizing,  the  reference  to  Mark  an  intrusion,  from 
any  lesser  dignitary  than  the  chief  Apostle  of  all.  It  is  there- 
fore neither  by  accident  nor  mistake  that  Peter's  name  heads 
this  epistle.  The  beginning  corresponds  with  the  end,  how- 
ever little  this  literary  and  Pauline  "  Peter  "  may  correspond 

^  On  "  Barnabas  "  as  suggested  author,  see  below. 

Rav^:  ri: i a^  /<^^<  i-^ty^- iA?U  .li-l 


THE  TRADITION  27 

with  the  GaHlean  fisherman  we  know  of  through  Synoptic 
story.  ^ 

An  artistic  literary  work  of  the  period  of  Domitian,  PauHne 
in  structure,  doctrine,  and  even  phraseology,  and  addressed 
to  the  PauHne  churches  of  Asia,  under  the  name  of  Peter, 
can  only  be  pseudonymous.  But  even  were  the  letter  an 
authentic  missive  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  the  reference  to  the 
€k\€ktoI  diacrTopas  in  1,  1,  taken  together  with  its  corresponding 
term  the  a5e\(l)6Trjs  vfxo^v  ev  toj  noafxco  (5,  9),  would  forbid  our  tak- 
ing the  expression  ev  Ba^vKQiuL  in  any  narrow  or  concrete  sense. 
As  it  is,  Rome  is  probably  meant,  but  the  expression  is  pur- 
posely veiled,  and  the  symbolism  (like  most  of  the  imagery  of 
this  epistle)  requires  to  be  interpreted  by  Isaiah  rather  than  by 
Revelation.  The  key  will  be  found  in  this  classic  Jewish  usage. 
It  shows  that  the  "  elect  sisterhood  "  in  the  author's  mind  is  on 
the  one  side  that  of  the  "  Dispersion  "  (diaaTopa),  on  the  other 
that  of  the  "  Captivity  "  (17  aweKXeKrij  h  Ba^vKoivi).  The  latter 
of  course  represents  the  main  stock.  "  Peter  "  speaks  for  it, 
because  he  is  the  leader  of  the  original  Twelve.  If  we  conceive 
it  to  be  the  actual  Peter  who  speaks,  we  meet  difficulties, 
among  them  the  question  what  he  means  by  i?  h  Ba^vKo)Vi 
avveKKeKTrj,  and  why  allegory  should  be  used,  if  this  be  allegory. 
If  "  Peter  "  be  a  pseudonym,  the  passage  will  still  afford  our 
strongest  evidence  that  Peter's  martyrdom  took  place  as  al- 
leged, in  Rome.  But  neither  ancients  nor  moderns  would  be 
justified  in  inferring  from  it  a  Roman  ministry  of  Peter,  with 
Mark  as  his  "  interpreter." 

The  mere  fact  that  the  aiithor  of  the  epistle  probably  sub- 
stitutes Peter's  name  for  his  own  has,  therefore,  no  direct  bear- 
ing on  the  question  whether  he  believed  in  a  sojourn  of  Peter  at 
Rome;  for,  whoever  he  be,  he  purposely  avoids  naming  a  real 
locahty,  and  makes  "  Peter  "  speak  not  so  much  in  behalf  of  a 
particular  local  body  of  Christians,  as  on  behalf  of  the  adeMorrjs 
ev  T(5  Ko<TjLi<3,  the  whole  body  of  the  exiled  people  of  God,  among 

1  Against  attempts  such  as  Harnack's  to  cut  off  1, 1  from  the  remainder,  observe 
also  the  interconnection  between  this  verse  and  1, 23  (BiacrwopA—kK  airopas  &<t>edpTov) ; 
2,  11  (TrapeTTiSii^oLs  —  ws  7rapeni8i,fjiovs),  and  the  dependence  of  James  1,  1,  10,  12, 
18  on  the  same  figure  of  the  5iaaTropa.. 


28  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

whom  the  "  elect  in  Babylon  "  are  complementary  to  "  the 
elect  of  the  dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia  "  etc.,  as  Israel  in 
captivity  beyond  the  Euphrates  is  complementary  to  the  Jew- 
ish Dispersion.  The  two  "  elect  sisters  "  await  in  both  cases  a 
common  redemption. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  personal  names  are  necessarily  real. 
The  writer  speaks  "  through  Silvanus  "  because  Silvanus  to- 
gether with  Paul  had  been  the  founder  of  most  of  the  churches 
now  exposed  to  persecution  among  "  the  Elect  of  the  Disper- 
sion." He  sends  the  greeting  of  "  Mark  "  because  Mark,  fol- 
lower first  of  Barnabas  and  Paul,  then  of  Barnabas  alone,  and 
lastly  of  Paul  alone,  had  first  of  all  been  an  intimate  associate, 
and  very  probably  a  convert,  of  Peter.  Mark  could  thus  be 
a  link  between  Petrine  and  Pauline  Christianity.  Whether 
the  writer  thinks  of  the  present  abode  of  either  Silvanus  or 
Mark  is  problematical;  but  it  is  clear  at  all  events  that  Mark 
has  become  a  "  personage,"  and  if  (as  the  tradition,  the  literary 
relations,  and  the  dissemination  give  reason  to  believe)  First 
Peter  is  really  of  Roman  provenance,  this  mention  is  an  indica- 
tion to  be  added  to  those  of  the  later  Pauline  Epistles  that  this 
trusted  coworker  of  Paul  continued  after  the  Apostle's  death  at 
Rome,  forming  one  of  the  bonds  connecting  the  church  of  the 
metropolis  with  Paul's  earlier  mission  field. 

This  interpretation  of  First  Peter  in  its  general  purpose,  and 
particularly  with  reference  to  the  symbolic  expressions  at  its 
beginning  and  end,  which  mask  the  actual  personality  of  the 
writer  and  the  real  situation,  must  be  presented  here  more  or 
less  dogmatically  for  lack  of  opportunity  to  develop  evidence. 
It  will  serve,  however,  to  indicate  why  the  definite  affirmations 
of  Papias  regarding  the  provenance  of  Mark,  eagerly  as  they 
have  been  adopted  by  the  later  church  writers,  who  look  to 
Papias  for  all  their  knowledge  of  Gospel  origins,  are  by  no 
means  to  be  taken  without  their  proper  "  grain  of  salt."  Zahn, 
of  course,  is  very  easily  convinced  of  the  authenticity  not  only 
of  First  Peter,  but  of  Second  Peter  also.  For  defensive  criticism 
the  rule  is  simple:  All  canonical  writings  bearing  the  name  of 
Peter,  authentic ;  all  uncanonical,  pseudonymous.  Even  Zahn, 
however,  feels  constrained  by  the  fundamentally  PauUne  char- 


THE  TRADITION  29 

acter  of  the  epistle  to  make  its  real  author  Silas  rather  than 
Peter.  Professor  McGiffert  has  a  theory  of  his  own  to  account 
for  its  peculiarities :  First  Peter  is  the  only  original  and  genuine 
Epistle  of  Barnabas;  the  insertion  of  the  name  "Peter"  is 
an  intrusion  either  accidental  or  designed.  Let  us  leave  suh 
judice  these  attempts  to  explain  how  an  epistle  which  by  con- 
tents, phraseology,  purpose,  and  address  is  Pauline  can  appear 
under  the  name  of  Peter,  and  limit  our  claim  to  the  undeniable 
fact  that  in  resting  on  1  Peter  5,  13  for  his  evidence  that  the 
scene  of  Mark's  attendance  as  "  translator  "  on  the  discourses 
of  Peter  was  Rome,  Papias  took  very  dubious  ground.  "  Peter  " 
possibly  took  passage  for  Rome  by  this  conveyance;  but  his 
passport  is  not  yet  vised,  for  Papias'  endorsement  will  not 
suffice.  We  must  have  better  evidence  before  we  admit  him 
to  residence. 

Nevertheless,  the  value  of  Papias'  testimony  does  not  wholly 
disappear.  We  have  some  reason  to  believe  that  First  Peter 
really  was  written  from  Rome.  Authentic  or  pseudonymous, 
its  literary  relations,  the  use  of  the  Pauline  literature  which  had 
preceded,  the  use  subsequently  made  of  the  epistle  itself  in 
these  regions,  its  earliest  circulation  —  these,  taken  together 
with  its  purpose  and  animus,  are  more  favorable  to  derivation 
from  Rome  than  from  any  other  church.  However  fallacious 
the  exegesis  of  the  passage  on  which  Papias  rested  his  belief, 
the  construction  he  followed  can  hardly  have  been  suggested 
by  it;  for  "  Babylon  "  would  naturally  be  taken  in  the  literal 
sense.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  as  we  have  seen,  reverts  to 
this.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  Papias'  view  of  the  epistle 
as  a  missive  from  Rome  could  have  maintained  itself  had  it 
been  demonstrably  at  variance  with  the  truth.  Grant  that 
the  real  author  of  the  epistle  does  not  mean  to  suggest  Rome 
by  the  symbolic  "  Babylon,"  and  that  the  mention  of  mem- 
bers of  Paul's  entourage  (one  of  whom  was  at  last  accounts  at 
Rome)  is  due  only  to  his  desire  to  commend  his  message  to  the 
Pauline  churches  addressed,  still,  the  mention  of  Mark  as 
Peter's  "  son  "  along  with  Silvanus  in  a  Roman  document  of 
ca.  87  A.D.  would  by  no  means  be  without  significance  to  our 
problem.    It  may  not  be  a  direct  consequence  of  this  linking  of 


30  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Mark's  name  with  Peter's  that  the  Gospel  which  was  under- 
stood to  embody  Peter's  memorabiUa  of  the  Lord  came  to 
be  designated  Kara  MapKov,  but  the  characterization  certainly 
points  to  Mark  as  a  "  personage  "  of  growing  authority  among 
the  Pauline  churches  at  this  period,  an  authority  which  would 
more  and  more  tend  to  rest,  as  it  has  already  in  this  passage 
begun  to  do,  on  his  earlier  relations  with  Peter,  rather  than  on 
his  later  relations  with  Paul. 

If  then,  First  Peter  be,  as  seems  so  probable,  a  Roman  writing 
of  ca.  87  A.D.,  it  shows  the  special  respect  in  which  Mark  was 
then  held  at  Rome,  and  shows,  moreover,  as  the  principal  basis 
for  that  respect,  his  long-past  associations  with  Peter.  The 
epistle  extends  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  the  Asiatic 
churches  of  Paul,  suffering  under  the  great  wave  of  Domitianic 
persecution  which  had  shortly  before  evoked  our  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  was  destined  not  long  after  to  bring  forth  the 
great  Ephesian  book  of  "  Prophecy  "  issued  as  the  "  Revelation 
of  John."  The  fact  that  not  only  "Peter"  but  "Mark,"  as 
Peter's  spiritual  "  son,"  is  for  this  purpose  a  name  to  conjure 
with  is  in  significant  parallelism  with  the  phenomenon  of  a 
Gospel  emanating  (as  tradition  affirms)  from  the  same  region, 
at  approximately  the  same  period,  which  is  understood  to  em- 
body the  airoiJ,vr]fxovevnaTa  of  Peter,  but  is  superscribed  with  the 
name  of  "  Mark."  From  this  point  of  view  one  can  appreciate 
why  the  "  Gospel  according  to  Mark  "  really  corresponds  in 
some  degree  to  the  tradition  that  it  represents  the  aveKbora  of 
Peter,  notwithstanding  its  attitude  of  uncompromising  Paulin- 
ism  on  debated  questions  of  faith  and  practice. 

From  the  question  of  Papias'  opinion  of  the  provenance  of 
the  epistle  and  its  probable  relation  to  fact,  we  may  return  to 
that  of  the  Gospel.  Papias  believed  both  works  to  emanate  from 
Rome.  He  grounds  his  belief  on  a  dubious  interpretation  of 
a  passage  whose  authenticity  is  subject  to  very  serious  dispute. 
At  first  sight  this  might  appear  almost  fatal  to  our  attempt  to 
link  tradition,  as  it  appears  after  Papias,  with  historical  report 
as  it  may  have  been  before.  But  the  real  origin  of  Papias'  be- 
lief is  one  thing,  the  proof-text  he  adduces  in  its  support  is 
another.    The  same  reasoning  which  applies  to  First  Peter  ap- 


THE  TRADITION  31 

plies  with  much  greater  force  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  I  am  not 
speaking  now  of  the  internal  evidences  of  Roman  origin  dis- 
played by  the  Gospel  These  must  be  considered  later.  I  do  not 
refer  to  the  evidences  of  early  employment,  which  in  the  case 
of  both  writings  are  at  least  not  unfavorable  to  Rome.  The 
question  is  simply  whether  Papias  would  be  apt  to  take  up  the 
idea  that  Mark  was  a  Roman  gospel,  or  having  taken  it  up  be 
able  persistently  to  maintain  and  transmit  it,  if  such  were  not 
the  fact.  Considering  how  vital  to  his  enquiry  this  question 
was,  not  a  merely  incidental  question  like  that  of  the  prove- 
nance of  First  Peter,  but  of  direct  concern  to  his  principal  en- 
quiry; considering  also  that  it  was  probably  not  a  difficult  matter, 
either  for  Papias  himself  or  for  his  opponents,  to  know  where 
this  primitive  Gospel  first  came  into  general  currency,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  hold  that  some  more  or  less  definite  knowledge 
must  have  been  the  real  basis  of  his  belief. 

Quite  apart  from  this  hopeful  probability,  the  results  of  our 
critical  analysis  are  by  no  means  entirely  destructive.  On  the 
contrary,  they  throw  new  and  important  light  upon  the  per- 
sonal history  of  Mark,  the  significance  of  which  increases  with 
the  probability  of  the  Roman  provenance  of  the  so-called  First 
Epistle  of  Peter  a  few  years  only  after  the  Gospel.  The  effect 
of  these  results  is  sharply  to  differentiate  an  apologetic,  legend- 
ary, or  at  least  unverifiable,  later  development,  from  a  nucleus 
of  authentic  tradition,  perfectly  consonant  with  all  we  can  learn 
both  from  Lukan  and  Pauline  sources.  On  this  side  of  the  age 
of  the  great  Apologists  our  enquiry  lays  bare,  it  is  true,  a  per- 
sistent apologetic,  dating  back  at  least  to  Papias,  if  not  to  the 
author  of  First  Peter  himself,  an  apologetic  which  is  bent  on 
binding  the  aged  Peter  and  carrying  him  away  whither  he 
would  not,  to  become  the  forefather  of  the  Roman  papacy. 
With  the  methods  of  this  apologetic  we  are  all  too  famiUar. 
By  all  means,  whether  with  much  persuasion  or  little,  the  chief 
Apostle  must  be  induced  to  give  his  indorsement  to  Rome's 
succession  and  Rome's  Gospel,  to  found  the  one  and  to  preach, 
if  not  actually  to  dictate,  the  other.  This  is  the  animus  of  the 
whole  body  of  tradition  from  Papias  onward.  But  back  of  this 
lies  a  very  different  type,  an  older  tradition  traceable  to  Pales- 


32  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

tine,  refractory  to  the  later  attempts  of  Papias  and  others  to 
mould  it  to  apologetic  and  Roman  interest.  By  this  older 
tradition  we  do  not  mean  the  representation  of  First  Peter, 
which  rather  forms  (intentionally  or  otherwise)  the  starting- 
point  for  Roman  glorification  of  the  Gospel  and  see  of  Peter. 
We  mean  the  quite  dispassionate,  almost  disparaging,  testimony 
of  the  Elder  John  of  Jerusalem,  corroborated  as  it  is  on  the 
negative  side  by  Matthew  (and  Luke)  in  their  limitation  of 
Peter's  sphere  to  Jewish  Christendom. 

It  is  this  Jerusalem  Elder  of  about  100-117  who  explains  the 
title  "  According  to  Mark  "  by  telling  us  (what  we  might  rea- 
sonably have  ourselves  inferred  from  Acts  12,  12,  25;  13,  5, 
13,  and  15,  37-39),  that  Mark  had  been  an  interpreter  for 
Peter,  and  had  written  down  accurately,  though  not  in  order, 
such  things  as  he  remembered  both  of  the  sayings  and  doings  of 
the  Christ.  Understood  in  its  most  natural  sense  (that  sense 
which  Zahn  maintains  to  be  not  only  admissible  but  alone  ad- 
missible), the  tradition  refers  to  recollections  set  down  at  least 
a  score  of  years  after  Mark's  personal  relations  with  Peter  had 
permanently  ceased.  In  this  representation  there  is  nothing 
improbable  or  unreasonable.  On  the  contrary,  it  agrees  not 
only  with  the  internal  characteristics  of  the  Gospel,  but  also  with 
what  we  learn  from  the  mentions  of  Mark  in  the  Pauline  epistles 
written  from  Rome.  These  show,  contrary  to  all  possible  an- 
ticipation, that  the  former  associate  of  Peter  and  Barnabas, 
a  worker  originally  in  that  Eastern  field  which  according  to 
Gal.  2,  1-10  had  been  allotted  to  Peter's  evangelizing  efforts, 
became  subsequently,  during  that  later  period  on  which  the 
Book  of  Acts  sheds  no  light,  an  associate  of  Paul,  and  a  worker 
in  Greece  and  Italy.  They  show  Rome  itself  at  last  accounts 
as  his  headquarters.  The  Elder's  statement  is  thus  curiously 
in  harmony  with  what  we  know  from  Acts,  and  Acts  alone,  in 
regard  to  Mark's  relations  with  Peter. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  itself,  on  the  other  hand,  bears  out  what 
we  know  from  the  later  PauUne  Epistles  alone  as  to  his  ultimate 
relations  with  Paul.  Between  the  two  stands  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  (an  admittedly  PauUnistic  writing)  in  which  Mark  has 
the  same  double  relation  as  in  the  Gospel.    For  the  Gospel,  like 


THE  TRADITION  33 

the  Epistle,  is  Pauline  as  respects  aim,  standpoint,  and  (tradi- 
tional) provenance;  but  as  regards  its  evangelic  data  it  is  both 
traditionally,  and  to  some  extent  as  a  matter  of  observed  fact, 
a  record  of  anecdotes  derived  from  Peter. 

We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  John  of  Jerusalem  took 
the  slightest  interest  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  We  have  no  reason 
to  imagine  any  acquaintance  on  his  part  with  First  Peter. 
Nevertheless  what  he  has  to  say  of  Mark  as  author  of  the 
Gospel  whose  provenance  later  tradition  attributes  to  Rome 
presents  him  in  the  same  light  as  1  Peter  5,  13,  i.e.  as  Peter's 
spiritual  "  son."  This  lends  no  small  corroboration  to  his  testi- 
mony. First  Peter,  Acts,  the  Elder  John — these  three  represent 
successive  stages  in  the  tradition  which  leads  to  the  attachment 
of  the  name  of  Mark  to  the  aironvrjiJiovevnaTa  of  Peter.  Not  the 
least  important  of  these  links  is  that  wherein  the  PauHne  en- 
courager  (from  Rome?)  of  the  Pauline  churches  of  Asia  under 
the  fire  of  Domitian's  persecution  borrows  the  name  of  Peter, 
using  also  the  names  of  Paul's  lieutenants,  Silvanus  and  Mark, 
as  his  intermediaries.  In  Epistle  and  Gospel  alike  the  hands 
are  the  hands  of  Peter,  but  the  voice  is  the  voice  of  Paul. 
Papias'  exegesis  and  criticism  will  hardly  stand;  but  in  attribut- 
ing both  Epistle  and  Gospel  to  Rome  Papias  falls  in  at  least 
with  certain  striking  features  shared  by  these  two  writings. 
Both  are  Pauline  to  the  core  as  regards  questions  of  faith  and 
practice.  Nevertheless  both  would  be  understood  as  speaking 
not  for  Paul,  but  for  Peter. 


II.    THE  DISSEMINATION 

Contrary  to  ordinary  experience,  tradition  regarding  the  origin 
of  Mark  antedates  most  of  the  extant  evidences  of  its  employ- 
ment. The  statement  of  John  of  Jerusalem  as  to  its  authorship 
and  relation  to  the  anecdotes  of  Peter  must  date  not  later  than 
117  A.D.  Outside  the  four  canonical  Gosp'els  themselves,  we 
have  absolutely  no  trace  in  any  correspondingly  early  writing 
of  the  existence  of  Mark.  However,  even  this  canonical  em- 
ployment is  not  without  bearing  on  the  question  of  its  prove- 
nance. Considering  that  this  was  an  anonymous  Gospel,  a  writ- 
ing whose  most  ardent  champions  did  not  venture  to  claim  for 
it  more  than  second-hand  relation  to  one  of  the  Apostles,  the 
degree  of  respect  shown  for  it  by  Matthew  and  Luke  at  the  very 
threshold  of  the  second  century  is  truly  extraordinary.  This 
is  difficult  to  account  for  unless  the  Gospel  had  already  at- 
tained wide  currency  and  acceptation,  implying  that  it  was 
vouched  for  in  high  quarters.  A  document  which  on  its  face 
makes  so  little  pretense  of  authority  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  attain  such  standing  if  emanating  from  some  obscure  region, 
undistinguished  as  the  seat  of  any  "  apostolic  "  church. 

The  representative  of  the  Jerusalem  ''  Elders  "  deprecates, 
as  we  should  expect,  exaggerated  dependence  upon  the  Gospel 
of  Mark.  To  take  this  written  record  as  a  complete,  "  ordered  " 
account  of  Jesus'  life  and  teaching,  of  directly  apostolic  au- 
thority, would  be  fatal  to  the  claims  of  Jerusalem's  own  most 
cherished  prerogative,  its  apostolic  tradition  of  the  Lord's 
words.  Still,  the  Elder  treats  the  book  with  consideration  and 
respect.  So  much  as  Mark  gave  was  really  from  ''  Peter,"  and 
was  "  accurately  "  recorded.  Still  greater  respect  than  this  is 
implied  in  the  use  made  of  Mark  at  a  considerably  earlier  date 
by  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Mark's  narrative  and  practically  nothing  else  is  adopted  by 
our  first  canonical  evangelist  for  his  entire  outline  of  Jesus' 
career.  But  the  author  of  Matthew  represents,  by  the  con- 
sensus of  ancient  tradition  with  modern  criticism,  the  same 
region  and  ecclesiastical  connections  as  John  of  Jerusalem. 

34 


THE  DISSEMINATION  35 

He  probably  does  not  antedate  the  Elder's  testimony  by  more 
than  a  decade  or  so.  It  is  insupposable  that  this  Palestinian 
evangehst  did  not  have  access  to  at  least  as  ample  stores  of 
evangehc  61177770-15  as  Luke  attests  both  by  direct  reference 
(Luke  1,  1)  and  by  employment.  He  is  likely,  rather,  to  have 
sympathized  with  our  fourth  evangeUst's  complaints  (John  20, 
30;  21,  25)  of  an  embarras  de  richesse  on  this  score.  Therefore 
when  we  find  Matthew's  outline  so  strictly  limited  to  Markan 
material,  and  even  the  order  of  Mark  unchanged  save  in  one 
important  regrouping  (Matt.  8-9),  we  can  only  infer  that  this 
is  due  to  the  great  authority  already  enjoyed  by  the  earlier 
Gospel. 

This  inference  from  Matthew  is  re-enforced  by  the  treatment 
accorded  to  Mark  by  Luke.  Here  again  the  degree  of  respect 
shown  for  the  contents  of  Mark,  and  (in  spite  of  the  evangehst's 
endeavor  to  write  Kade^rjs)  even  for  its  order,  is  so  far  beyond 
what  its  self-indicated  origin  would  lead  us  to  expect,  that  no 
other  explanation  seems  available  than  that  of  quasi-authorita- 
tive acceptation. 

This  remarkable  fact,  that  the  non-apostolic  Greek  Gospel 
of  Mark  should  by  100  a.d.  have  attained  a  currency  and  stand- 
ing so  completely  dominant  as  to  determine  for  all  subsequent 
time  the  standard  outline  of  Jesus'  career,  is  of  enormous  sig- 
nificance. An  age  which  has  but  recently  accommodated  itself 
to  the  conviction  that  Mark  is  the  oldest  of  the  Synoptic  group, 
Mathew  and  Luke  being  independently  dependent  on  it,  may 
be  pardoned  for  not  immediately  appreciating  all  its  implica- 
tions. One  of  them,  however,  is  the  following:  Repetitions  by 
one  or  both  of  Mark's  satellites  may  not  be  taken  off-hand  as 
corroborations.  They  may  be  mere  reflections  of  Mark.  For 
corroboration  we  should  requu-e  the  added  testimony  of  Paul, 
or  of  the  Second  Source  (Q).  When  for  example  Luke  (but 
not  Matthew)  takes  over  the  Markan  theory  of  the  demonic 
recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  and  Son  of  God,i  we  have  not 
two  witnesses  for  the  fact,  but  only  one  witness,  whose  weight 
with  later  writers  must  be  judged  by  this  relation.    Conversely 

1  See  Bacon  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  N.  T.  Wissenschaft,  VI  (1905),  pp.  153  ff. 


36  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

when  Matthew  (but  not  Luke)'  takes  over  Mark's  idea  that  the 
parables  were  riddles  intended  to  hide  the  mystery  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  from  "  those  without/'  we  merely  have  evidence 
how  greatly  Matthew  was  controlled  in  his  conceptions  by  even 
an  erroneous  theory  of  Mark.  When,  therefore,  we  come  to  a 
consideration  of  the  peculiarities  of  Mark  as  respects  Chris- 
tology,  eschatology,  and  otherwise,  it  will  not  do  to  argue :  Such 
and  such  a  phenomenon  is  not  "  Markan  "  because  the  same 
passage  appears  also  in  one  or  both  of  the  two  later  Synoptists. 
Only  in  subordinate  changes  could  Matthew  and  Luke  depart 
from  Mark.  As  a  whole,  the  Markan  outline  and  content  was 
imposed  upon  them.  The  minor  changes,  aiming  to  effect  im- 
provements in  geography  (mainly  in  Matthew),  rehabilitation 
of  Peter,  the  Apostles,  and  the  kindred  of  the  Lord,  restoration 
of  the  Davidic  pedigree  of  Jesus,  and  the  like,  are  all  the  more 
significant.  But  when  we  speak  of  the  "  Markan  "  outline,  this 
must  be  understood  to  include  that  portion  of  Mark  which  has 
been  taken  over  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  To  judge  how  far  this 
represented  the  general  stream  of  gospel  teaching  we  must  com- 
pare it  with  Paul  and  the  Q  material,  not  merely  with  its  own 
reflection  in  "  triple  tradition  "  material. 

It  is  entirely  erroneous  to  connect  the  Second  Source  with  the 
name  of  "  Matthew."  This  Apostle's  name  is  never  connected, 
in  early  tradition,  with  any  other  writing  than  our  own  first 
Gospel  —  a  false  ascription  whose  origin  we  can  only  conjec- 
ture. "  Peter  "  thus  remains  as  the  only  apostolic  source  of 
evangelic  material  tj  \exdevTa  r)  irpaxd^vra  for  the  earlier  tradi- 
tion; and  the  respectful  treatment  accorded  by  both  Matthew 
and  Luke  to  Mark,  as  compared  to  that  accorded  to  Q  material, 
corroborates  the  result. 

When  we  leave  the  field  of  the  canonical  Gospels  and  come 
down  to  the  pseudoapostolic  composites  of  the  second  century, 
the  earliest  and  most  important  is  the  so-called  Gospel  of  Peter 
(140-150  A.D.  ?).  In  Evangelium  Petri  the  fundamental  narra- 
tive outline  is  again  Markan,  and  the  apostolic  authority  ap- 

^  The  Markan  idea  of  the  "  hardening  of  Israel"  is  adopted  by  all  later  evan- 
gehsts.  On  this  see  below.  Luke  (Acts.  28,  26-27)  and  John  (12,  40)  welcome 
and  extend  the  proof-texts  (Isa.  6,  9).  But  only  Matthew  goes  so  far  as  to  adopt 
Mark's  theory  of  the  teaching  in  parables  as  proving  it.    Cf.  Luke  8,  9-10. 


THE  DISSEMINATION  37 

pealed  to  is  "  Peter."    In  fact,  "  Peter  "  now  even  speaks  in  the 
first  person. 

It  was  at  about  this  period  (125-140  a.d.)  that  the  relatively 
late  and  dependent  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  succeeded  in 
ousting  "  Petrine  "  tradition  from  its  commanding  influence, 
this  result  being  due  to  its  vastly  greater  appeal  to  the  post- 
apostolic  demand  for  evroXal  rfj  -n-to-ret  vto  tov  Kvplov  SeSojueVat,  and 
for  direct  apostolic  authority;  and  the  title  /card  Maddalov  is 
not  very  much  later  in  origin  than  the  Gospel  itself.  Once  the 
ancient  glory  of  a-KoixvrnxovehjxaTa  of  Peter  had  been  eclipsed 
by  "  Matthew,"  we  begin  to  get  pseudo-Matthean  gospels. 
At  the  outset  "  Synoptic  "  tradition,  as  we  call  it,  is  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  filled  out  in  the  second 
generation  with  some  minor  attachments  of  relatively  late  and 
apocryphal  anecdote,  and  with  large  supplements  of  discourse 
material  (Q)  taken  from  the  so-called  Second  Source,  There  is 
no  claim  to  any  other  apostoUc  authority  than  "  Peter,"  until 
the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  enters  the  field  with  a  problem- 
atic ascription  to  "  Matthew,"  not  traceable  earHer  than 
Papias.  Finally,  Ephesus,  the  great  headquarters  of  Paulinism, 
shows  sufficient  independence  to  break  away  for  considerable 
sections  of  the  story  from  the  stereotyped  ''  Petrine  "  outline 
of  Mark.  As  in  the  case  of  Matthew,  tradition  soon  brings 
forward  the  claim  of  apostolic  authorship  in  behalf  of  this  last 
and  best  of  the  Gospels.  Theophilus  of  Antioch  (181  a.d.) 
maintains  that  it  was  written  by  the  Apostle  John. 

The  history  of  Mark  in  the  formative  period  of  the  Gospels  is 
therefore  unique.  A  superstructure  of  unequalled  authority  is 
built  upon  a  foundation  of  most  modest  claims.  This  is  all  the 
more  significant  in  view  of  the  rapid  decline  of  this  once  domi- 
nant Gospel  to  a  position  of  almost  complete  eclipse.  It  could 
not  hope  to  maintain  itself,  once  the  larger  Gospel  of  Matthew 
with  its  higher  claims  of  apostolic  authority  had  come  into  gen- 
eral use.  As  we  see  from  Papias,  the  demand  of  the  age  was  for 
a  systematic  compend  of  the  divine  oracles  of  the  Lord  {avvra^is 
Tcov  KvpiaK(hv  \oyLcop).  It  required  a  nova  lex,  a  revealed  Law 
like  that  proclaimed  from  Sinai,  "  commandments  delivered 
by  the  Lord  to  the  faith,  which  are  derived  from  the  truth 


38  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

itself."  On  this  score  the  mere  "  Memoirs  of  Peter  "  could  not 
hope  to  compete  with  Matthew. 

Even  from  the  annalist's  point  of  view,  Mark  took  second 
rank.  As  a  complete  narrative  "  from  the  very  first  "  down  to 
the  establishment  of  the  new  religion  in  the  world's  metropolis 
it  was  hopelessly  outdistanced  by  the  splendid  double  work 
attributed  to  Luke  the  companion  of  Paul,  which  also  made 
pretensions  to  "  order."  The  marvel  is  that  a  Gospel  so  com- 
pletely superseded  as  Mark  in  the  estimate  of  the  post-apostolic 
age  could  manage  to  survive  at  all.  Nothing  but  its  one-time 
influence  saved  it;  and  the  mutilated  and  reconstructed  form 
in  which  we  have  it  attests  the  pressure  it  went  through  before 
the  newer  and  larger  Gospels  took  its  place  in  common  em- 
ployment. Its  survival  is  unquestionably  due  in  large  part  to 
the  belief  that  it  represents  the  preaching  of  Peter.  Justin  at 
Rome  in  152  even  refers  to  Mark  3,  17,  as  "written  in  his  (i.e., 
Peter's)  memoirs."  But  this  tradition  has  no  traceable  founda- 
tion in  the  book  itself.  The  Gospel  obtained  its  first  currency 
under  the  name  of  Mark;  the  name  of  Peter  was  superimposed 
later  to  increase  and  widen  its  authority.  Had  it  been  other- 
wise the  title  would  certainly  have  been  Kara  Jlerpov,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  imagine  such  a  title  displaced  by  the  unpretentious 
Kara  MapKov. 

What,  then,  can  be  inferred  on  the  score  of  provenance  from 
the  extraordinarily  high  and  wide-spread  authority  of  Mark? 
Had  the  authority,  position,  and  influence  of  the  community 
which  first  gave  it  currency  something  to  do  with  this;  or  was 
it  obtained  on  its  intrinsic  merits,  plus  the  belief  in  its  indirect 
derivation  from  Peter? 

Judged  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  Clement  of  Rome,  a 
"  Second  Clement,"  an  Ignatius,  a  Polycarp,  a  Hermas,  the 
intrinsic  merits  of  a  Gospel  of  Mark  in  comparison  with  others 
of  the  "  many  "  dirjyljaeLs  referred  to  by  Luke  cannot  have  been 
at  all  conspicuous.  None  of  these  writers,  save  possibly  Her- 
mas (and  Hermas  is  from  Rome),  show  special  predilection  for 
Mark.  Both  epistles  ascribed  to  "  Clement,"  as  well  as  the 
seven  of  Ignatius,  use  uncanonical  gospels  more  freely  than 
they  use  Mark.  Predilection,  as  soon  as  traceable  in  the  Fathers, 


THE  DISSEMINATION  39 

is  always  in  favor  of  Matthew,  for  reasons  already  set  forth. 
Basilides  and  Marcion  favor  Luke.  Their  preference  is  equally 
explicable.  Besides  its  larger  content  than  Mark,  Luke  repre- 
sents Antioch,  or  (North)  "  Syria  and  CiHcia,"  the  native 
province  of  Basihdes,  and  of  Cerdon  the  teacher  of  Marcion 
as  well. 

The  only  other  exception  to  the  rule  of  second-century  prefer- 
ence for  Matthew  is  reported,  and  correctly  accounted  for  as  well, 
by  Irenaeus.  He  tells  us  ^  that  "  Those  who  make  a  distinction 
between  Jesus  and  Christ  (i.e.,  Adoptionists  or  Docetists  of  the 
type  represented  in  Ev.  Petri  and  Acta  Joh.),  alleging  that 
Christ  remained  impassible,  but  that  it  was  Jesus  who  suffered, 
prefer  the  Gospel  by  Mark."  This  mere  doctrinal  preference 
has,  of  course,  no  bearing  on  our  problem. 

Mark  is  no  more  likely  to  have  won  popularity  from  the 
rhetorical  and  stylistic  point  of  view  than  from  that  of  contents 
or  authorship.  The  innumerable  corrections  to  Mark's  Greek 
by  both  Matthew  and  Luke  show  plainly  enough  how  his  un- 
couth and  barbarous  idiom  was  regarded.  Either,  then,  this 
primitive  Gospel  must  have  emanated  from  some  centre  of  very 
great  authority  and  importance,  with  or  without  the  important 
sanction  of  an  alleged  derivation  from  Peter;  or  we  are  at  a  loss 
to  account  for  the  dominant  position  it  acquired  in  every  region 
of  the  early  church  to  which  our  knowledge  extends.  Such  an 
authoritative  centre  of  emanation  might  be  Rome;  or  it  might 
equally  well  (so  far  as  yet  appears)  be  Jerusalem.  Antioch 
might  come  next  in  consideration  as  a  possibility;  but  Antioch, 
like  Ephesus  and  Jerusalem,  has  a  Gospel  of  its  own,  and  yet 
(while  using  Mark,  and  in  addition  a  large  amount  of  "  Petrine  " 
material)  makes  no  pretensions  to  any  special  relation  to  Peter. 
This  would  hardly  be  possible  if  the  Antiochian  church  had 
previously  employed  the  famous  Markan  "  Memorabiha  of 
Peter." 

As  we  have  seen,  the  only  place  besides  Rome  that  raises  a 
whisper  of  claim  to  the  honor  of  being  the  birthplace  of  the 
Gospel  is  Alexandria,  and  that  at  a  period  so  late  (Chrysostom) 
and  in  a  form  so  manifestly  imitated  from  the  Roman  tradition 

1  Haer.  iii.  11,  7. 


40  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

which  it  aims  to  supersede,  as  to  be  immediately  ruled  out  of 
court.  As  regards  Jerusalem,  whose  claim  might  otherwise  be 
regarded  as  strongest,  the  tradition  of  John  the  Elder  is  very- 
damaging.  For  if  ever  there  was  a  case  of  "  damning  with 
faint  praise  "  it  is  here.  And  "  the  Elder  "  certainly  speaks  for 
Palestine. 

To  what  extent,  then,  was  the  early  dominance  of  Mark  due 
to  emanation  from  an  authoritative  centre,  and  to  what  extent 
to  its  alleged  relation  to  Peter?  In  the  attempt  to  answer  this 
question  it  is  important  to  recall  the  relation  of  priority  already 
adverted  to.  The  Gospel  was  not  first  known  as  airoixvriixoveh- 
fxara  Uerpov  and  afterwards  entitled  Kara  MapKov.  It  was  first 
known  simply  as  to  evayyeXLov,  later  (to  distinguish  it  from 
rivals)  as  to  Kara  MapKov.  Finally,  to  give  it  still  greater 
authority,  perhaps  for  wider  circles,  it  was  declared  to  embody 
recollections  of  the  teaching  or  preaching  of  Peter.  The  reverse 
process  is  inconceivable. 

If  it  were  possible  still  to  maintain  the  theory  already  de- 
scribed as  that  of  the  defenders  of  the  authenticity  of  First 
Peter,  representing  the  great  Apostle  of  the  circumcision  as 
coming  to  Rome  after  Paul's  death  to  become  as  it  were  ad- 
ministrator of  his  Gentile-church  estate,  in  co-operation  with 
his  surviving  fellow-workers,  this  would  of  course  make  the 
Roman  provenance  of  Mark  almost  indisputable,  confirming 
without  more  ado  the  tradition  traceable  to  Papias.  Unfor- 
tunately this  tradition,  as  we  have  seen,  cannot  be  traced  any 
further  back  than  Papias  himself,  and  the  more  clearly  it  is 
seen  to  rest  upon  inference  from  1  Peter  5,  13,  the  more  dubious 
it  becomes.  The  whole  conception  of  Peter's  ministry  at  Rome 
(I  do  not  say,  of  his  execution  there)  may  be  built  out  of  this 
pseudonymous  epistle.  At  all  events,  it  lacks  every  element  of 
support  not  derived  from  it.  It  also  conflicts  with  Matthew,  a 
gospel  which  beyond  all  others  exalts  the  authority  of  Peter, 
making  him  the  "  Rock  "  on  which  the  Church  is  founded  and 
endowing  him  with  authority  to  "  bind  and  loose,"  while  at  the 
same  time  it  surpasses  all  others  in  the  strictness  of  its  perman- 
ent limitation  of  the  apostolic  see  to  Jewish  soil.  Considerations 
of  this  type  compel  us  to  renounce  a  method  of  proof  based  on 


THE  DISSEMINATION  41 

Papias'  exegesis  of  1  Peter  5,  13.  But  what  is  the  alternative? 
Grant  that  Peter  never  was  in  Rome;  grant  that  the  vague 
and  allegorizing  references  of  the  Epistle  to  the  "  elect  sister 
in  Babylon,"  and  to  Mark  as  Peter's  spiritual  "  son,"  are  part 
of  the  author's  Uterary  mise  en  scene,  grant  that  the  commen- 
dation of  Silvanus  as  "  a  faithful  brother  "  and  the  gospel  of 
the  Pauline  churches  as  "  the  true  grace  of  God  "  are  spoken  in 
the  name  of  "  Peter  "  not  because  Peter  was  really  present,  but 
because  his  authority  was  indispensable  to  the  object,  we  are 
still  called  upon  to  account  for  the  immediate  and  undisputed 
acceptance  of  the  inferences  of  Papias  from  this  Epistle  as  to 
the  provenance  of  a  well  known  Gospel. 

Papias'  inference  from  1  Peter  5,  13  would  hardly  have  met 
such  unopposed  success,  obtaining  the  assent  even  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  if  any  other  centre  than  Rome  had  at  this  time 
been  putting  forward  claims  to  be  the  source  of  the  Petrine 
teaching.  Doubtless  Antioch  could  boast  many  traditions  of 
Peter;  but  so  far  as  evangelic  tradition  was  concerned,  Antioch 
was  already  depending  on  another  name,  that  of  "  Luke  "  the 
companion  of  Paul.  Rome,  not  Antioch,  was  now  (140-150 
A.D.)  aspiring  to  be  known  as  "  the  see  of  Peter."  Hence 
Papias'  discovery  in  1  Peter  5,  13  ''  met  a  long-felt  want," 
precisely  as  did  Eusebius'  subsequent  discovery  in  Papias'  own 
pages  of  the  much-desired  "  other  John  "  in  Asia,  whom  Diony- 
sius  of  Alexandria  had  sought  in  vain,  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Revelation.  At  an  earher  time,  the  period  of  Luke  and  Mat- 
thew, the  "  see  of  Peter  "  is  Antioch  or  Jerusalem,  as  it  had  been 
since  Paul  described  him  as  "  the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision  " 
and  classed  him  with  James  the  Lord's  brother  and  John  as  one 
of  the  "  pillars  "  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  2,  7-9).  Why,  then,  was 
it  so  desirable  to  bring  Peter  to  Rome?  If  the  (probably  Ro- 
man) author  of  First  Peter  intends  ev  Ba/SuXwj/t  to  be  understood 
as  Papias  understood  it,  the  motive  is  manifest.  Himself  a 
Roman,  he  would  have  the  chief  Apostle  speak  from  Rome.  This 
intention,  however,  is  far  from  certain.  With  an  equally  em- 
phatic ''  if  "  we  may  make  the  same  assertion  of  John  21,  18, 
whose  author  employs  First  Peter,  and  is  also  probably  Roman. 
If  the  Appendix  to  John  is  of  Roman  origin,  ca.  150  a.d.,  as  I 


42  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

have  argued  in  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate,  ^ 
and  if  the  phrase,  "  shall  carry  thee  away  whither  thou  wouldest 
not,"  is  intended  covertly  to  suggest  Rome,  we  may  still  be 
dealing  with  ideas  suggested  by  1  Peter  5.  But  neither  passage 
mentions  Rome,  or  has  anything  to  distinctly  imply  it.  In 
these  cases  the  ground  is  too  uncertain;  we  base  no  inferences 
upon  them.  With  Papias  and  those  who  adopted  his  account  of 
Gospel  origins  the  case  is  otherwise.  There  can  be  no  mistak- 
ing the  motive  of  his  transforming  comment  upon  "  the  Eld- 
er's "  meagre  testimony,  when  we  compare  it  with  the  original. 
Papias  is  bent  on  making  Mark  simply  the  "  translator " 
{epix-qvevTrjs)  of  the  oral  discourses  of  Peter,  a  "  translator  "  who 
also  transcribes  upon  the  spot.  By  this  means,  the  authority 
of  the  Gospel  is  enhanced  to  the  very  verge  of  direct  apostoUc- 
ity.  "  Mark,  therefore  made  no  error  in  writing  down  some 
things  as  he  heard  them;  for  he  made  it  his  one  aim  to  omit 
nothing  that  he  had  heard,  and  to  set  down  nothing  amiss." 
Papias'  motive  in  assuming  Peter  to  be  in  Rome  is  to  enhance 
the  value  of  the  Gospel  he  employs. 

We  come  back,  then,  to  the  period  antecedent  to  these  at- 
tempted connections  of  Peter  with  Rome,  a  period  when  this 
Gospel  was  generally  current,  but  known  only  by  the  name 
Kara  MdpKov.  John  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  true,  vindicates  a  further 
claim  commonly  made  on  its  behalf,  that  it  contains  authentic 
anecdotes  of  Peter.  But  its  standing  and  currency  were  not 
originally  gained  on  this  representation.  They  were  gained  on 
the  basis  of  the  older  tradition  represented  by  its  title.  It  had 
been  "  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark."  We  must  look  for  its 
origin  and  its  primary  acceptation  where  such  a  title  would 
suffice  to  give  authority. 

Considering  first  the  possibility  of  a  Palestinian  provenance, 
it  is  self-evident  that  no  gospel  would  be  likely  to  attain  cur- 
rency and  authoritative  standing  in  the  region  of  the  apostolic 
mother  church  which  could  offer  no  better  basis  for  its  claims 
than  the  name  of  "  Mark."  To  say  nothing  of  the  probabiUty 
that  in  Palestine  "  John  "  was  probably  the  designation  of  the 
individual  in  question  (Acts  12,  25;   13,  5),  and  deferring  the 

1  C.  7,  "  Epistles  and  Appendix." 


THE  DISSEMINATION  43 

question  of  language,  no  gospel  having  such  small  pretensions 
to  apostolicity  could  have  won  in  Palestine  the  place  Mark 
came  to  occupy. 

Attainment  of  it  in  Antioch,  Alexandria,  or  Ephesus,  under 
such  a  title  would  be  less  insupposable;  but  the  very  late  and 
highly  suspicious  form  of  the  tradition  making  the  claim  on 
behalf  of  Alexandria  is  strongly  opposed  to  an  Egyptian  prove- 
nance, while  Antioch  and  Ephesus  have  Gospels  of  their  own, 
not  mere  revisions  of  Mark,  though  they  make  use  of  it.  Tradi- 
tion is  absolutely  silent  as  to  provenance  from  these  regions. 

When  we  come  to  Rome,  the  conditions  are  precisely  such  as 
would  favor  the  attainment  of  the  standing  achieved  by  Mark 
under  the  simple  title  Kara  MapKov.  The  Pauline  Epistles  show 
John-Mark  a  trusted  helper  of  Paul  in  Rome  when  the  curtain 
falls  on  the  great  Apostle's  activity.  Rome,  and  Rome  alone, 
has  anything  to  relate  of  personal  connection  with  this  individ- 
ual that  may  be  based  on  actual  knowledge.  Hippolytus  ^  at 
Rome  calls  Mark  6  KoXvl3o8aKTv\os.  What  the  meaning  of  the 
epithet  may  be  we  cannot  say,  declining  to  add  new  romances 
to  the  fanciful  interpretations  of  medieval  and  later  legend 
makers.  But  the  mere  currency  of  the  epithet  proves  that 
early  in  the  third  century  Rome  still  had  something  of  its  own 
to  tell  concerning  John-Mark.  No  other  region  tells  anything 
not  found  in  Acts  save  the  unimportant  claim  of  Alexandria, 
and  a  real  sojourn  of  Mark  in  Alexandria  in  50-60  is  quite 
admissible. 

But  after  the  period  of  the  later  Pauluae  Epistles  an  epoch  is 
begun  by  a  new  characterization  of  our  evangelist.  In  85-90 
A.D.  Mark  appears  again  in  1  Peter  5,  13.  It  is  not  certain  that 
Mark  is  here  regarded  as  resident  in  Rome,  it  is  not  even  cer- 
tain that  he  was  still  living;  but  it  is  important  to  observe  that 
in  this  probably  Roman  writing  his  chief  claim  to  distinction 
has  come  to  be  the  fact  that  he  had  been  a  (spiritual)  "  son  "  of 
Peter,  no  mention  being  made  of  his  relations  to  Barnabas  and 
Paul.  This  corresponds  to  the  rapidly  growing  reverence  of  the 
sub-apostoHc  age  for  "  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word," 
a  word  of  divine  revelation  which  had  been ''  first  spoken  by  the 

1  Refut.  vii.  30. 


44  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Lord"  and  afterward  confirmed  to  it  "by  them  that  heard. "^ 
The  epithet  "my  son"  explains  how  (at  Rome?)  a  Gospel 
could  attain  to  superlative  authority  on  the  simple  assurance 
that  it  was  "  According  to  Mark."  In  other  domains  than 
evangeUc  story  the  name  of  Mark  was  probably  not  one  to  con- 
jure with.  But  Mark  had  once  been  an  associate  of  Peter. 
As  time  went  by  such  a  distinction  rapidly  increased  in  value. 
In  Hebrews  (ca.  85)  those  who  had  "  heard  "  the  revelation  and 
seen  the  "  signs  and  wonders  "  are  already  reckoned  to  a  past 
generation.  Anecdotes  of  the  "  sayings  and  doings  of  the 
Lord  "  put  forth  under  the  name  and  sanction  of  Mark  would 
soon  attain  locally  all  the  authority  of  direct  narrations  of 
Peter  himself.  At  the  same  time  resort  to  secondary  authority 
in  support  of  the  Gospel  argues  strongly  against  ability  to  ap- 
peal to  primary.  Wherever  Mark  obtained  its  title  it  is  prac- 
tically certain  the  local  church  was  not  as  yet  able  to  say:  This 
is  the  Gospel  we  received  from  Peter  himself. 

Outside  its  place  of  origin  a  Gospel  having  the  reputed  sanc- 
tion of  the  chief  Apostle  would  have  free  course  to  be  glorified. 
Once  current  in  the  Greek-speaking  church  as  aTroiivrnxovehixaTa 
Ilcrpou  no  other  compend  could  hope,  to  rival  it  until  one  should 
appear  bearing  the  name  of  an  Apostle  and  supposedly  repre- 
senting the  church  of  "  the  Apostles  and  Elders  "  in  Jerusalem. 
But  for  years  after  Mark  appeared  the  mother  church  in  Jeru- 
salem still  manifests  the  well  known  Jewish  preference  for  oral 
tradition,  perhaps  appreciating  the  principle  of  which  Rome 
later  made  ample  use,  that  pubhshed  teaching  is  anybody's  or 
nobody's  property,  the  tool  of  friend  and  foe  alike.  Contrari- 
wise, the  unpubhshed  "  tradition  of  the  fathers,"  handed  down 
by  word  of  mouth,  and  limited  to  the  initiate,  is  an  almost  im- 
pregnable bulwark  of  orthodoxy.  Synagogue  rule  allowed  the 
targumist  liberty  to  draw  up  written  notes  of  the  translation 
and  interpretation  of  the  sacred  text  for  his  own  private  use 
at  home;  and  doubtless  the  Aramaic  basis  of  our  earliest  Greek 
Gospel  must  be  referred  to  such  written  dLrjyrjaeLs,  gradually 
extended  in  compass.  Officially,  however,  the  "  church  of  the 
Apostles  and  Elders  in  Jerusalem  "  will  have  stood  for  "  the 

1  Luke  1,  2;  Heb.  2,  3. 


THE  DISSEMINATION  45 

living  and  abiding  voice  "  as  of  "  more  profit  than  books."  The 
result  was  that  the  first  widely  circulated  Gospels,  properly  so- 
called,  were  Greek;  though  they  rest  on  a  Semitic  foundation. 
The  Aramaic  compositions  of  which  we  have  actual  knowl- 
edge through  surviving  fragments  and  reports  by  the  Fathers 
are  without  exception  later  than  the  Greek  and  based  upon 
them.  These  pseudo-apostolic,  second-century  Aramaic  gospels 
represent  the  belated  and  fruitless  attempt  of  the  Oriental 
church  to  undo  the  ill  effects  of  its  earlier  conservatism. 

The  preference  of  the  Aramaic-speaking  mother-church  in 
Jerusalem  for  oral  tradition,  combined  with  its  exalted  sense  of 
its  own  commission  as  custodian  and  interpreter  of  the  true 
gospel  of  Jesus,  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  curious  anomaly 
that  the  oldest  extant  Gospels  are  Greek  writings,  though  based 
from  the  necessities  of  the  case  on  Aramaic  material.  It  also 
explains  that  other  curious  phenomenon  with  which  we  are  now 
engaged,  that  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  ancient  tradition, 
corroborated  (as  we  shall  see)  by  the  internal  evidence,  the 
primitive  Church  turned  not  to  the  East,  and  to  Palestinian 
contemporary  records,  for  its  standard  story  of  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  to  a  Greek  writing  of  the  remotest  branch 
of  the  Church,  a  writing  which  did  not  even  claim  to  be  by  an 
Apostle,  but  was  admittedly  composed  under  circumstances 
which  made  the  testimony  of  the  eye-witnesses  inaccessible  to 
the  evangelist ! 

At  first  sight  this  anomaly  would  seem  almost  incredible.  In 
reality  it  is  precisely  what  close  knowledge  of  the  conditions 
should  lead  us  to  expect.  Remote  and  self-confident  Rome 
under  its  Pauline  leaders  ^  need  have  no  hesitation  in  putting 
to  any  use  it  chose  such  traditions  and  records  of  Jesus'  life 
and  teaching  as  its  archives  afforded.  Few,  at  this  remove  of 
time  and  distance,  would  dispute  the  statements  advanced. 
A  large  and  fast  growing  body  of  Gentile  Christians  would 
welcome  the  work,  support  its  claims  (such  as  they  might  be) 
to  apostolic  authenticity,  and  maintain  its  authority.  Con- 
trariwise, the  nearer  we  approach  to  Jerusalem  with  its  body 

1  On  the  Pauliniem  of  the  Roman  church  in  Paul's  day,  and  for  Bome  decades 
after,  see  below. 


46  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

of  eye-witnesses,  jealous  to  an  extreme  degree  of  their  claim  to 
hold  the  true  tradition  of  the  Lord's  career  and  teaching,  yet 
at  the  same  time  refusing  to  put  it  in  writing,  the  more  difficult 
does  it  become  for  any  non-apostolic  record  (and  the  claims  of 
the  Second  Source  on  this  score  must  have  been  even  less  than 
Mark's,  from  the  treatment  accorded  to  its  order  by  Matthew 
and  Luke)  to  obtain  currency  and  standing. 

Of  all  possible  quarters  from  which  to  expect  early  and  wide 
dissemination  of  such  a  gospel  as  Mark,  Rome  is  by  all  odds 
the  most  probable.  That  this  earliest  of  extant  Greek  Gospels 
should  attain  its  short-lived  supremacy  under  the  simple  title 
"  According  to  Mark  "  is  explicable  under  the  theory  of  Roman 
provenance,  but  hardly  otherwise.  By  virtue  of  its  claim  to 
represent  the  teaching  of  Peter,  whose  spiritual  "  son  "  Mark 
had  been,  and  no  less  by  virtue  of  the  refusal  on  the  part  of  the 
"  successors  of  the  Apostles  "  (StdSoxot  to)v  a-KoaroKoiv)  at  Jeru- 
salem, who  regarded  themselves  as  trustees  and  guardians  of 
the  "  commandments  delivered  by  the  Lord,"  to  publish  their 
deposit  of  the  faith  in  written  form,  this  Gospel  attained  that 
pre-eminence  in  the  field  which  produced  the  phenomenon 
known  to  modern  criticism  as  "  Synoptic  "  tradition.  Deep 
below  the  surface  it  laid  the  foundation  for  the  see  of  Peter  at 
Rome.  For  Matthew  and  Luke,  Jerusalem  (with  Antioch  as  a 
daughter  see)  is  still  the  seat  of  "Petrine"  authority.  For 
Matthew  the  very  Church  of  Christ  is  founded  on  this  "  Rock." 
Authority  to  "  bind  and  loose  "  is  vested  in  him,  and  under  his 
leadership  the  Church  wins  its  victory  over  the  powers  of  the 
underworld.  Even  when  "  the  Holy  City "  has  been  laid 
waste,  Matthew  cannot  conceive  the  departure  of  the  apostolic 
see  from  one  of  "  the  cities  of  Israel "  till  the  Son  of  Man  be 
come.  However,  this  transfer,  so  unimaginable  to  Matthew,  is 
ultimately  accomplished  by  purely  literary  means.  The  Gospel 
of  Mark  effected  it ;  for  the  more  concerned  men  were  to  prove 
that  this  Gospel  comprised  the  preaching  of  Peter,  the  more 
easily  persuaded  were  they  that  the  church  which  had  given  it 
out  had  listened  to  the  Apostle  himself.  Thus  Peter's  emi- 
grant spiritual  "  son  "  provides  his  venerable  father  with  a  new 
home  in  the  West.    Rome  gave  to  the  Christian  world  under  the 


THE  DISSEMINATION  47 

name  of  "  Peter's  Memoirs  "  that  written  record  of  the  "  say- 
ings and  doings  of  the  Lord  "  which  it  craved,  and  which  Jeru- 
salem had  refused.  The  Christian  world  gave  to  Rome  in  re- 
turn that  "  power  of  the  keys  "  which  Jerusalem  had  intended 
for  itself. 


III.    THE  INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

A.  Language 

Neither  the  evidence  of  tradition  nor  of  dissemination  can  be 
decisive  of  the  question  of  provenance  if  unsupported  by  the 
internal  evidence.  In  the  case  of  Mark  modern  criticism  finds 
many  data  to  corroborate  the  results  already  attained.  Those 
which  are  naturally  first  to  be  considered  are  those  of  language. 
The  Gospel  is  written  in  Greek,  the  language  employed  by 
Paul  in  writing  to  the  Roman  church  in  55  a.d.,  and  employed 
by  its  own  great  writers  throughout  the  century  following, 
Clement,  Hermas,  Justin.  This  represents  only  the  trans- 
parent prima  facie  fact.  Much  more  deeply  significant  is  the 
phenomenon  of  the  Bible  quotations,  which  are  made  from  the 
Septuagint.^  We  have,  indeed,  one  instance  of  a  quotation  bor- 
rowed from  the  Second  Source  (Mark  1,  2;  cf.  Matt.  11,  10  = 
Luke  7,  27),  one  whose  origin  Redactor  Marci  did  not  recognize, 
erroneously  ascribing  it  to  "  Isaiah,"  and  two  other  cases  of 
Old  Testament  language  reflecting  the  Hebrew  rather  than 
the  Septuagint  text,  which  are  probably  due  to  the  same  cause. 
These  exceptions  are  of  the  type  which  "  prove  the  rule." 
Habitually  the  evangelist  uses  the  Septuagint  and  is  affected 
by  it  in  his  style  and  vocabulary.  As  a  rule  his  references  are 
memoriter,  and  less  pains  are  taken  than  in  Matthew's  tran- 
scription to  make  the  wording  agree  exactly  with  the  Septua- 
gint text.  All  the  more  certain  is  it  that  the  Bible  used  by  this 
evangelist  and  the  circle  for  whom  he  wrote  was  the  Greek 
Bible. 

^  The  phenomena  of  the  Scripture  employments  and  quotations  of  Mark  be- 
long properly  to  another  phase  of  the  problem.  It  may  be  stated  that  the  neces- 
sarily brief  account  here  attempted  rests  upon  independent  personal  study  of  all 
the  passages.  The  general  result  had  been  stated  by  other  investigators.  Mark 
uses,  and  is  influenced  by,  the  LXX.  He  does  not  use,  nor  is  he  directly  influenced 
by,  the  Hebrew.  Quotations  which  seem  to  show  such  influence  are  1,  2,  of  which 
mention  is  made  above,  and  15,  34  =  Psalm  22,  1  (Heb.).  In  addition  4,  29  shows 
influence  from  Joel  4,  13.  The  possible  tinge  from  the  Hebrew  in  this  case  should 
be  accounted  for  as  in  that  of  1,  2,  viz.,  derivation  from  the  Second  Source.  On 
15,  34  =  Psalm  22,  1,  see  below. 

48 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  49 

These  outstanding  phenomena  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  aheady 
prove  that  in  its  present  form  it  was  put  first  in  circulation 
among  the  Greek-speaking  churches  north  and  west  of  the 
Taurus  range,  rather  than  in  Syria;  but  they  do  not  exclude 
the  possibility  of  translation,  whether  of  the  work  as  a  whole, 
or  of  the  material  underlying  it. 

1.  In  point  of  fact  the  Greek  of  Mark  is  so  unmistakably 
tinctured  by  a  Semitic  basis  as  to  make  it  practically  certain, 
in  the  judgment  of  competent  scholars  such  as  Wellhausen  and 
Torrey,  that  the  material  is  largely  translated  from  a  written 
Aramaic  document,  or  documents.  But  the  most  convincing 
proof  of  translation  would  carry  no  weight  against  Roman  prov- 
enance unless  it  could  be  shown  to  involve  the  Gospel  as  a 
whole,  editorial  building  as  well  as  basic  material.  No  excep- 
tion, therefore,  need  be  taken  by  advocates  of  the  view  for 
which  we  are  here  contending  to  the  idea  that  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  consists  largely,  perhaps  almost  exclusively,  of  Aramaic 
documentary  material,  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  church 
in  Rome ;  for  such  material  must  have  been  carried  everywhere 
from  Palestine  by  primitive  evangelists.  More  or  less  stereo- 
typed oral  tradition  would  soon  give  place  to  written  anecdotes 
and  memoranda;  for  even  the  synagogue  translator  was  per- 
mitted to  put  his  targums  in  written  form  for  private  use  and 
elaboration,  though  forbidden  to  bring  such  documents  into 
the  pulpit.  Aramaic  notes  and  memoranda  of  this  sort  in  homi- 
letic  form  would  certainly  be  preserved  and  translated  at  Rome; 
for  in  Rome,  as  elsewhere,  the  earliest  church-teachers  were 
necessarily  converted  Jews.  Such  as  had  most  to  tell  of  gospel 
story  would  naturally  be  those  from  Palestine. 

For  reasons  based  on  the  internal  structure  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  particularly  evidences  of  its  dependence  to  a  limited 
extent  upon  the  Second  Source,  it  is  more  probable  that  an  in- 
termediate stage  of  preliminary  translation  and  agglutination 
lies  between  the  Gospel  in  its  present  form  and  certain  earlier 
groupings  of  preacher's  anecdotes  of  the  kind  described,  cor- 
responding to  Jewish  religious  story.  For  its  ultimate  data 
nothing  less  than  the  entire  historical  content  of  the  Gospel 


50  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

must  of  course  go  back  to  that  Aramaic  which  it  so  freely 
quotes,  and  with  such  manifest  satisfaction. 

The  advocate  of  Roman  provenance  may,  therefore,  welcome 
proofs  almost  ad  Hbitum  that  the  Greek  of  Mark  is  "  transla- 
tion Greek."  Its  own  compiler,  he  who  introduces  in  transliter- 
ation, wherever  the  narrative  furnishes  good  excuse,  the  actual 
Aramaic  words  used  by  Jesus,  would  be  the  first  to  take  pride  in 
the  fact.  So  would  the  original  sponsors  for  the  Gospel,  those 
readers  for  whose  benefit  the  Aramaic  words  are  introduced. 
They  would  undoubtedly  claim  that  the  Aramaic  material 
translated  had  belonged  to  John-Mark  the  "  son  "  of  Peter; 
and  as  regards  some  of  the  most  important  historical  elements 
their  claim  would  probably  have  real  basis  in  fact.  All  this, 
however  serviceable  and  interesting,  a  contribution  of  real  im- 
portance from  the  side  of  granmiatical  philology,  has  no  bear- 
ing against  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  as  we  know  it,  and  as  it  was 
known  to  the  remotest  attainable  antiquity,  was  and  is  a  Greek 
document,  compiled  and  annotated  for  a  Greek-speaking  com- 
munity. This  community,  like  the  evangelist  himself,  recog- 
nized and  used  not  the  Hebrew  but  the  Greek  Old  Testament, 
and  was  ignorant,  to  a  considerably  greater  degree  than  those 
addressed  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  not  only  of  the  Jewish 
language,  but  (as  we  shall  see)  of  its  customs,  conditions,  in- 
stitutions, politics,  history,  geography,  and  environment. 

The  mass  of  Mark  may  very  well  prove  to  be  ''  translation 
Greek."  Its  Greek  is  at  all  events  cruder  and  more  uncouth 
than  that  of  either  Matthew  or  Luke;  for  both  our  later  Synop- 
tists  make  hundreds  of  grammatical  and  styUstic  corrections  of 
the  Greek  of  Mark,  even  while  at  the  same  time  in  their  own 
translated  material  (and  sometimes  on  their  own  account) 
they  retain,  almost  ostentatiously,  certain  favorite  Semitisms 
of  "  bibhcal  "  type  which  are  avoided  by  Mark. 

It  would  perhaps  be  possible  to  explain  this  curious  anomaly 
by  supposing  that  between  the  publication  of  Mark  and  its 
later  satellites  "  translation  Greek  "  had  been  raised  to  the 
standing  of  a  Uterary  fashion,  the  example  of  the  Septuagint 
giving  currency  in  ecclesiastical  circles  to  certain  favorite  "  bib- 
hcisms  "  not  as  yet  in  vogue  when  Mark  was  written.    A  more 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  51 

probable  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  vastly  greater  use  of 
the  Second  Source  made  by  Matthew  and  Luke  than  by  Mark. 
The  material  independently  employed  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  which  does  not  appear  in  Mark  is  commonly  designated 
Q,  and  is  derived  from  a  Second  Source,  which  when  employed 
by  them  was  (like  Mark)  in  the  form  of  a  Greek  document 
translated  from  the  Aramaic.  Both  in  its  original  and  its 
translated  form  this  Second  Source  was  a  document  of  far 
higher  literary  pretensions,  and  in  much  more  artistic  style, 
than  Mark.  Its  Greek  is  also  "  translation  Greek,"  but  of  a 
type  more  free  than  Mark's  from  crude  solecisms,  while  highly 
affected  by  the  author's  fondness  for  Septuagint  phraseology. 
Matthew  and  Luke  sacrifice  its  order  to  the  Markan,  and  prob- 
ably suppress,  or  at  least  subordinate,  most  of  its  narrative  — 
a  course  hardly  compatible  with  belief  in  its  Apostohc  author- 
ship. They  use  it  for  its  teaching  material,  and  are  demonstra- 
bly influenced  by  its  literary  superiority.  Now  Q  deUghts  in 
"  biblicisms,"  as  the  modern  school-boy  dehghts  to  compose  in 
"  King  James  "  English  by  frequent  interlardings  of  "  and 
behold,"  or  "  and  it  came  to  pass."  If,  then,  the  "  translation 
Greek  "  of  Matthew  and  Luke  displays  the  same  difference 
from  that  of  Mark,  using  "  biblicisms  "  even  in  some  cases 
where  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  they  are  directly  incorporat- 
ing the  Second  Source,  this  is  no  more  than  we  should  expect 
from  the  far  greater  consideration  they  show  for  its  language. 

Familiar  examples  of  such  "  bibhcisms  "  are  the  endless 
cases  of  Kal  iyeueTo  (an  Old  Testament  idiom  whose  Aramaic 
equivalent  is  doubtful)  in  Luke,  their  monotony  only  partly  re- 
lieved by  variation.  These  are  almost  always  avoided  by  Mark. 
Matthew  also  avoids  them;  but  with  a  curious  exception.  For 
his  five-fold  colophon,  closing  each  of  his  five  gi-eat ''  Sermons," 
Matthew  sterotypes  the  formula  found  at  the  close  of  the  first ' 
in  Q  (Matt.  7,  28  =  Luke  7,  1,  /3  text)  Kal  eyeuero  ore  ereXeacj/  k.t.X. 
One  other  case  occurs  in  Markan  material  (Matt.  9,  10),  where 
Matthew  overlooks  the  correction  of  this  bibhcism  so  wilhngly 

1  This  Discourse  on  the  Righteousness  of  Sons  (corresponding  to  the  so-called 
Sermon  on  the  Mount)  is  the  only  one  derived  as  a  whole  from  the  Second  Source 
The  other  four  are  based  on  Mark. 


62  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

and  copiously  admitted  by  Luke.    Elsewhere  he  prefers  more 
idiomatic  Greek  comiection. 

The  biblicism  Kai  l8ov  (=  Heb.  npn],  Aram,  nm)  is  freely  em- 
ployed by  both  later  evangelists,  though  excluded  by  Mark  (cf . 
Mark  1,  40;  5,  22,  with  parallels).  On  the  other  hand  the  con- 
nection by  t6t€,  especially  in  the  phrase  Tore  6  'Irjaovs,  seems  to  be 
a  mannerism  of  Matthew.  Other  instances  will  doubtless  appear 
in  the  special  study  to  be  devoted  to  this  aspect  of  our  problem. 
The  explanation  here  proposed  may  not  be  the  true  one.  If 
not,  the  grammarians  must  furnish  a  better.  Meantime  it  may 
suffice  to  note  the  following  difference  between  the  Semitic  tinc- 
ture of  Mark  and  that  of  the  two  later  Synoptists:  the  "trans- 
lation Greek  "  of  Mark  seems  to  be  naively  and  crudely  Semitic; 
whereas  that  of  Matthew  and  Luke  has  been  reduced  to  a  liter- 
ary type  of  its  own,  with  Septuagint  Greek  for  a  model.  Zahn 
well  expresses  the  general  nature  of  the  phenomena  in  his  Intro- 
duction (§  53,  Enghsh  translation,  II,  487): 

Mark  reproduces  in  his  Greek  book  with  apparent  pleasure  the  Aramaic 
form  of  Jesus'  words  and  those  of  other  persons,  although  it  is  always  neces- 
sary to  append  a  Greek  translation  for  the  benefit  of  his  readers.  (This  is  not 
always  the  case  in  either  Matthew,  Luke,  or  John).  ...  It  is  also  to  be 
noticed  that  Mark's  Greek  shows  Hebraic  colouring  more  strongly  than  any 
other  of  the  Gospels  and  almost  beyond  that  of  any  other  New  Testament 
writing.  Although  Mark  does  not  exhibit  as  many  flagrant  errors  against 
grammar,  conscious  or  unintentional,  as  does  the  Book  of  Revelation,  he 
has  more  genuine  Semitic  idioms. 

We  may  leave  to  the  philological  specialists  particularly  con- 
cerned with  this  aspect  of  the  problem  the  question  whether 
the  difference  thus  noted  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  influence 
of  the  Second  Source.  Meantime  it  is  needless  to  transcribe  the 
details  of  evidence  appended  by  Zahn  (I,  502)  to  his  general 
statement.  Careful  statistics  are  furnished  by  Wernle,  Hawkins, 
and  Stanton.  In  particular,  Swete,  after  a  characteristically 
thorough  and  careful  study  of  Blass'  theory  of  an  Aramaic 
original  for  Mark,  reaches  the  following  conclusion: 

An  examination  of  St.  Mark's  vocabulary  and  style  reveals  peculiarities  of 
diction  and  colouring  which  cannot  reasonably  be  explained  in  this  way. 
Doubtless  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  book  is  based  upon  Aramaic  originals; 
it  is  in  the  main  a  reproduction  of  Aramaic  teaching,  behind  which  there 
probably  lay  oral  or  written  sources,  also  Aramaic.    But  the  Greek  Gospel 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  53 

is  manifestly  not  a  mere  translation  of  an  Aramaic  work.  It  bears  on  every 
page  marks  of  the  individuality  of  the  author.  If  he  wrote  in  Aramaic,  he 
translated  his  book  into  Greek,  and  the  translation  wliich  we  possess  is  his 
own.  But  such  a  conjecture  is  unnecessary,  as  well  as  at  variance  with  the 
witness  of  Papias.^ 

To  disprove  the  theory  of  Roman  provenance  it  is  not  enough 
to  show  evidence  for  the  "  Aramaic  originals  "  referred  to  by 
this  eminent  authority,  either  as  respects  the  "  Aramaic  teach- 
ing "  which  it  reproduces,  or  the  "  oral  and  written  sources, 
also  Aramaic  "  which  "  lay  behind  "  this.  Such  material  was 
doubtless  available  in  the  archives  of  the  Roman  church 
after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  indeed  of  Mark  as  well.  To  dis- 
prove the  origin  of  Mark  at  Rome  it  would  be  needful  to  show 
not  only  that  the  material  shows  marks  of  translation  (whether 
before  the  work  of  compilation,  or  by  the  evangehst  himself  as 
part  of  his  undertaking),  but  that  the  Gospel  as  such,  inclusive 
of  the  editorial  framework,  was  current  in  Aramaic.  Consider- 
ing the  necessity  every  editor  is  under  of  adapting  his  own 
language  more  or  less  to  that  of  the  material  he  edits,  it  is  safe 
to  regard  this  feat  as  beyond  the  grammarian's  powers.  Curi- 
ous indeed  would  be  the  paradox  if  ecclesiastical  tradition  had 
so  long  cherished  the  mistaken  belief  that  the  first  Gospel  is  a 
translated  work,  while  erroneously  maintaining  the  contrary 
belief  regarding  the  second. 

2.  From  the  Aramaic  coloration  of  Mark's  Greek  we  may 
turn  to  the  well-known  phenomenon  of  this  evangehst's  large 
use  of  Latinisms.  As  the  case  is  often  overstated,  we  prefer  to 
present  it  in  the  cautious  and  well  chosen  language  of  Zahn: 

The  fact  that  Mark  uses  more  Latin  technical  terms  than  the  other  evan- 
gelists has  only  comparative  value,  since  such  words  were  in  common  use 
everywhere  in  the  provinces,  even  among  the  Jews  in  Palestine.  The  use 
of  such  terms  instead  of  the  Greek  expressions  indicates  difference  of  taste, 
not  the  author's  nationaUty.  Still  it  must  have  been  very  natural  for  an 
author  writing  in  Rome  for  Romans  to  employ  Latin  names  for  Latin  thmgs. 

Of  these  Latinisms  a  striking  example  is  Kevrvpiuv  Mark  15, 
39,  44,  45;  in  the  parallel  passages  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  and 
everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  we  have  only  hardv- 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  xlii. 


54  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

rapxos  or  €KaTovTapxns  (Matthew,  four  times,  Luke,  three  tunes, 
Acts,  fourteen  times).  Other  instances  of  Latinisms  found  only 
in  Mark  among  New  Testament  writers  (though  occasionally- 
employed  elsewhere)  are  (nreKovKaro^p  (6,  27)  and  ^iaT-qs  (7,  4,  8) 
=  sextarius.  Mark  also  uses  (jipajeXKovv  =  flagellare,  and  Krjvaos 
(for  which  Luke  in  20,  22  prefers  the  Greek  ^opos ) .  We  also  find 
KodpavTTjs  (=  quadrans)  in  12,  42,  and  -wpairoipiov  in  15,  16.  All 
these  expressions  had  passed  over  into  the  current  speech  of 
Jews  throughout  the  empire,  so  that  their  mere  occurrence  in 
Mark  cannot  prove  anything  as  to  its  origin  in  a  Latin-speaking 
region.  Even  their  greater  proportion  in  Mark  is  merely  sugges- 
tive. But  Zahn  does  not  hesitate  to  call  it  "  decisive  "  that  in 
two  instances  Mark  "  explains  Greek  by  Latin."  The  two  ex- 
amples of  this,  the  explanation  of  avKi]  by  Trpaircoptof,  in  15,  16, 
and  of  XeTTTo  6i;d  by  KodpavTr]s  in  12,  42,  will  be  discussed  pre- 
sently. 

Swete  ^  tells  us,  apropos  of  avu^ovXiov  TroLrjcavTes  =  Vg.  con- 
silium facientes  in  15, 1,  that  "the  late  and  rare  word  avu^ovXtov 
was  used  as  a  technical  term  to  represent  the  Latin  consilium.^' 
The  word  is  certainly  "late  and  rare"  and  may  be  (as  Mommsen 
avers)  "formed  in  the  Graeco-Latin  official  style  to  represent 
the  untranslatable  consilium.' '  But  this  hardly  distinguishes 
it  from  the  other  Latinisms.  Matthew  uses  (tvh^ovXlop  Xaju- 
l3dv€Lv,  whose  precise  equivalent  in  English  is  "take  counsel," 
but  only  in  passages  which  are  probably  influenced  by  Mark. 
We  may  leave  to  others  the  question  whether  avp.^ovKiov 
hhbvai  (3,  6  =  edere?),  <})a'Li'eTaL  (14,  64  =  videtur?),  pairla- 
naaiv  avTov  eXa^ov  (14,  65  =  verheribus  eum  acceperunt?) , 
iinl3aKoov  (?  14,  72),  and  iroLrjaai  to  hapdv  (15,  15  =  satisfacere?) 
are  properly  to  be  reckoned  as  Latinisms,  and  if  so  what  bear- 
ing they  have  on  the  provenance  of  Mark.  It  will  be  more 
serviceable  if  at  this  point  we  turn  from  evidences  purely 
grammatical  and  linguistic  to  evidences  of  a  more  general 
type,  beginning  with  the  explanations  offered  by  the  evangelist 
to  his  readers  of  things  Jewish,  Palestinian,  or  Oriental.  Under 
this  head  must  be  included  not  only  the  valuation  of  the  com- 

^  Commentary,  on  Mark  15,  1.  The  authority  on  which  Swete  rests  is  Momm- 
sen as  cited  by  Deissmann,  Bible  Studies,  p.  238. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  55 

mon  Greek  coin,  the  XeirTov  in  12,  42,  and  the  attachment  in  15, 
16  to  the  common  Greek  term  avXij,  meaning  ''  court,"  of  the 
Latin  ivpaiTOipiov,  but  several  dubious  explanations  of  Aramaic 
words  and  phrases. 

B.  Editorial  Glosses  and  Explanations 

It  is  noticeable  that  in  Mark  we  have  explanations  to  the 
reader  of  things  Jewish  and  Oriental.  These  usually  take  the 
form  of  parenthetic  notes,  obiter  dicta,  or  of  glosses  superficially 
attached.  These  last  may  be  termed  "  editorial,"  because  they 
appear  (so  far  as  textual  evidence  avails)  to  be  an  authentic 
part  of  the  original  work.  We  have  observed  (with  Zahn)  that 
Red. -Marc,  reproduces  "  with  apparent  pleasure  "  the  Aramaic 
words  of  Jesus  on  great  occasions  such  as  the  raising  of  Jairus' 
daughter  (5,  41),  the  healing  of  the  deaf-mute  (7,  34),  the 
prayer  in  Gethsemane  (14,  36),  and  the  parting  cry  from  the 
cross  (15,  34).  This  in  itself  would  carry  small  weight,  were  it 
not  that,  unlike  other  evangelists  who  make  less  display  of  their 
linguistic  attainments,  Mark  seems  to  consider  an  accompany- 
ing translation  necessary  for  his  readers'  benefit  in  all  cases  save 
the  most  commonplace.  ^  Even  "  abba"  (14,  36)  he  finds  it  need- 
ful to  translate  as  6  iraT-qp  (with  Paul,  Rom.  8,  15;  Gal.  4,  6); 
while  Matthew  and  Luke  are  content  with  the  simple  Greek 
equivalent,  omitting  the  Aramaic  (Matthew  26,  39  =  Luke  22, 
42;  cf.  Matthew  6,  9  =  Luke  11,  2).  How  pedantic  it  would 
have  sounded  in  Jerusalem  or  Antioch  to  translate  abha ! 

It  might  be  "  decisive,"  as  Zahn  maintains,  and  at  the  same 
time  more  definite  geographically,  were  it  the  fact  that  Mark 

explains  Greek  by  Latin:  12,  42,  XcTrrd  bvo,  6  kariv  Ko8pavTT]s;  and  15,  16, 
eo-co  Tfjs  avXrjs,  6  eartv  irpaLTCjpiov.  .  .  .  The  discussions  between  Blass  and 
Ramsay  {Expository  Times,  X,  232,  287,  336)  have  only  made  it  evident  that 
it  could  not  possibly  occur  to  one  who  was  writing  for  Greeks  to  explam  the 
common  expression  Svo  XeTrrd  by  the  word  KodpavTvs  —  a  word  to  them  much 
less  familiar,  to  say  the  least.  This  is  just  the  situation  in  Mark  15,  16.  To 
support  his  assertion  —  which  has  no  support  whatever  m  the  tradition  — 

1  Only  the  Ephesian  evangelist  finds  it  necessary  to  translate  />apfil  and  f>afifiovyl 
(John  1  38:  20,  16),  "  the  Messiah  "  (1,  41),  and  significant  proper  names  such 
as  Siloam  (9,  7),  Gabbatha  (19,  13),  Golgotha  a9,  17).  Luke  often  uses  yo,wSi- 
SdffKaXos  instead  of  ypafifiaTti)s,  and  dXTj^ws  for  "  amen." 


56  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

that  Mark  is  a  translation  of  an  Aramaic  book,  Blass  (loc.  cit.)  says  that  o  kcmv 
irpaiToiptov  is  a  mistranslation  of  avXr),  which  there  denotes  not  palace,  but 
courtyard.    The  word  has  the  latter  meaning  only  in  14,  66. 

But  Professor  George  F.  Moore  cites  exactly  the  same  equa- 
tion of  coinage,  1  quadrans  {Kodpavr-qs)  =  2  perutas  (XeTrrd), 
from  a  Palestinian  Hebrew  text  of  the  second  century;  ^  and 
6  icxTLv  -KpaiTOipiov  need  not  be  a  *'  mistranslation  "  of  the  com- 
prehensive avKi]]  it  may  merely  serve  for  closer  determination. 
Altogether  the  term  indecisive  would  seem  more  suitable  for 
these  hnguistic  evidences. 

The  weak  point  of  Zahn's  argument  appears  when  he  is 
called  upon  as  champion  of  the  traditional  authorship  to  de- 
fend the  correctness  of  Red.-Marc.  explanations.  Thus  the 
rendering  viol  tSpovrrjs  for  the  mysterious  title  ^oavrjpyis  applied 
to  the  sons  of  Zebedee  in  3,  17,  is  still  an  unexplained  puzzle. 
Neither  ancient  nor  modern  philology  furnishes  a  real  Aramaic 
equivalent.'^  Again  in  the  (more  authentic)  scene  of  the  trial 
before  Pilate  (15,  1-5)  the  expression  av  XeyeLs  is  correctly 
understood  as  noncommittal.  As  the  late  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer 
has  shown  (Journal  of  BibUcal  Literature,  XIII,  40-49)  this 
phrase  appears  in  Jewish  writings  in  the  sense,  "  So  you  say." 
In  the  (imitated)  scene  of  14,  61-65,  the  evangelist  apparently 
takes  it  as  a  positive  affirmation. 

The  suspicion  that  Red.-Marc,  while  able  to  translate  Ara- 
maic for  his  readers'  benefit,  has  no  such  mastery  of  the  language 
as  we  must  presuppose  in  a  native  or  long  resident  of  Jerusalem, 
is  strengthened  when  we  read  the  attempt  in  15,  34-36,  to  in- 
terpret the  parting  "  loud  cry  "  of  Jesus  as  a  quotation  of 
Psalm  22,  1.  So  extreme  a  representation  of  the  mental  agony 
of  Jesus  could  not  fail  to  evoke  protest,  and  it  is  therefore  quite 
intelligible  that  Luke  should  substitute  the  more  acceptable 
Psalm  31,  5  {"  Into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  spirit  ").    Both, 

1  The  Baraitha  on  the  coinage,  Jer.  Kidd.  ed.  Yen.  f.  58  d,  1.  25  ff.,  ed.  Zitom. 
Kidd.  f.  3  b  near  bottom;  see  also  Krauss,  Talmudische  Archaologie,  II,  409,  674. 
This  information  forms  one  of  a  series  of  invaluable  criticisms  and  suggestions  for 
which  the  author  desires  to  express  his  obhgation  to  Professor  Moore. 

2  On  "  Dalmanutha"  (Mark  8, 10),  A.  Wright  in  his  Synopticon  remarks,  "  No 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  word  has  been  found."  He  commends  that  sug- 
gested by  Rendel  Harris  (Study  of  Codex  Bezae,  p.  178)  which  makes  it  a  misren- 
dering  of  the  Aramaic. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  57 

however,  appear  to  be  attempts  to  fill  out  with  meaning  the 
too  bald  statement  of  verse  37  that  "  Jesus  expired  with  a  loud 
cry."    But  in  Mark  this  still  stands  (in  spite  of  the  dupHcation) 
alongside  of  verse  34.     The  Markan  and  Lukan  Scripture 
quotations,  therefore,  are  secondary  and  tertiary  developments 
respectively.     What  Luke  thinks  of  the  Markan  elaboration 
upon  Psalm  22,  1,  may  be  judged  by  his  substitute  in  23,  36- 
37.    For  Mark  15,  34-36,  in  which  the  incident  of  the  cry  is 
combined  with  that  of  the  offering  of  vinegar  (retained  alone 
in  John  19,  28),  is  full  of  difficulties.    If  it  be  one  of  the  soldiers 
who  offers  the  drink  of  posca,  as  commonly  understood,  how 
does  the  soldier  come  to  be  familiar  with  the  Jewish  beUef  in 
the  coming  of  Elias?    We  may  suppose  him  a  local  recruit  fa- 
miUar  both  with  the  language  and  the  prophesied  coming  of 
Elias.     But  in  that  case  how  could  he  mistake  the  Aramaic 
words  quoted  as  a  call  to  Elias  ?    The  simplest  escape  is  by  sup- 
posing the  quotation  to  have  been  made  in  Hebrew,  which 
would  give,  in  fact,  EH,  Eli,  lamah  'azabtani  {'^niiv  np^  ''?^  'bn), 
the  first  two  words  being  mistakable  by  persons  unfamiUar  with 
Hebrew,  but  familiar  (like  the  Aramaic  speaking  populace,  and 
perhaps  members  of  the  locally  recruited  guard)  with  the  legend 
of  the  coming  of  Elias.    The  Aramaic  '•n^x  could  hardly  be  mis- 
taken for  the  prophet's  name.    The  supposition  that  the  utter- 
ance was  made  in  Hebrew  is  therefore  the  natural  resort  of  the  /3 
text  which  frankly  substitutes  fa0^at'et   (Dd)   ^a^acfidavet   (or 
^ajSaxdaueL?)  (B,  1  i),  or  zaphani  (k)  for  the  authentic  Aramaic 
aa^aKraveL.    In  fact  in  the  /S  text  Matthew  also  has  'HXet,  though 
the  rest  of  the  quotation  is  given  in  Aramaic.    Evang.  Petri, 
rendering  the  cry  17  dwa/xis  ixov,  17  dwafXLS,  also  clearly  presupposes 
the  Hebrew.    There  is,  accordingly,  strong  evidence  that  the 
original  author  of  this  explanation  of  the  cry,  which  in  the  pres- 
ent form  of  the  Gospel  has  made  its  way  into  the  text,  assumed 
that  Jesus  quoted  the  Psalm  in  Hebrew.    The  compiler  of  the 
Gospel  as  it  now  stands,  Red.-Marc,  considers,  on  the  contrary, 
that  here,  as  elsewhere,  Jesus  spoke  in  Aramaic.    He  therefore, 
gives  the  quotation  in  Aramaic,  but  not  in  such  Aramaic  as 
would  be  written  were  the  story  original  with  one  familiar  with 
this  language.    The  two  peculiarities  which  remain  for  expla- 


58  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

nation  are  the  following:  (a)  Here,  as  in  two  other  cases  of 
probably  borrowed  material  (Mark  1,  2;  4,  29),  but  more 
unmistakably,  the  Hebrew  text  makes  itself  felt  in  the  form 
of  the  quotation.^  (6)  The  Aramaic  itself  is  faulty,  translitera- 
ting '•jnpnB'  np^  ■•n^N  •'h^n  as  eXcot  iXcot  Xa/id  aajSaxdavel  accord- 
ing to  Nestle's  text.  Even  if  we  exonerate  Red.-Marc.  at  the 
cost  of  transcribers,  the  errors  must  not  only  go  back  of  all 
known  witnesses  to  the  text,  but  (at  least  in  part)  even  back  of 
Matthew's  transcription.  We  must  either  construct  a  text  out 
of  whole  cloth  or  hold  Red.-Marc.  responsible.  If  the  evangel- 
ist himself  wrote  such  Aramaic  as  this,  the  fact  has  a  bearing 
on  the  question  where  Mark  first  circulated. 

In  Mark  7,  3-4  we  have  a  further  example  of  the  evangel- 
ist's explanation  of  Jewish  terms  and  practices.    Montefiore  and 
Abrahams  indignantly  repudiate  as  libellous  this  description  of 
Jewish  distinctions  of  "  clean  "  and  "  unclean,"  and  to  this 
attitude  of  Red.-Marc.  toward  things  Jewish  as  a  pervasive 
feature  of  the  Gospel  we  must  return  later.    Meantime  apropos 
of  the  expression  kolvols  x^P<^i'^  of  the  source  (verse  5  forms  part 
of  the  material)  we  can  but  ask:   How  could  any  but  readers 
remote  from  Palestine  and  Jewish  customs  require  an  explana- 
tion of  the  word  kolvos  employed  in  the  technical  sense?    Not 
even  Paul  (Rom.  14,  14),  or  the  author  of  Hebrews  (2,  14;  9, 
10,  29),  finds  it  necessary  to  explain  the  terms  kolpos,  kolvovp, 
and  the  author  of  Rev.  21,  27  finds  explanation  equally  need- 
less.   Luke,  it  is  true,  adds  the  synonym  aKadapros  in  Acts  10, 
14;   15,  28,  and  11,  8,  9;  but  Matthew  in  his  parallel  to  Mark 
7,  1-5  simply  omits  the  entire  explanatory  digression,  employ- 
ing the  term  kolvovv  in  15,  11, 18, 20,  as  if  the  meaning  were  self- 
evident.    Red.-Marc,  we  observe,  not  only  finds  explanation 
needful  for  his  readers,  but  shows  at  least  lack  of  sympathy  for 
things  Jewish,  if  not  aUen  ignorance,  in  the  explanation  he 
undertakes  to  furnish.     In  his  introductory  paragraph    (7, 
1-2)  he  first  repeats  with  the  explanatory  gloss:   Koivals,  roOr* 
€(TTLv  avLTTTOLs,  the  Statement  of  his  source  (ver.  5),  that  "  The 
Pharisees  and  scribes  asked  him.  Why  do  thy  disciples  not  walk 

^  See  Dittmar,  Vetus  Testamentum  in  Novo,  103,9  ad  loc.    The  LXX  has  6  deSt, 
6  Otbs  fiov,  irp6<7X(s  not,,  Iva  rl  eyKarkXiiris  fie. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  59 

according  to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat  their  bread  with 
common  (kolvols)  hands?  ";  thereafter  he  interjects  a  descrip- 
tion of  Jewish  observances  (vers.  3-4),  whose  tone  can  hardly 
be  called  respectful,  even  if  "  ablutions  of  cups  and  pots  "  do 
form  part  of  Jewish  ritual.  Even  when  the  sense  is  expressed 
by  the  Greek  itself,  as  in  wapaffKevij  (15,  42),  Mark  appends  a 
paraphrase  (6  earLv  irpoa-a^^aTov),  and  explains  the  sense  of  the 
transliterated  yeewa  (9,  43,  to  irvp  to  aa-^eaTov). 

C.   Local  Geography  and  History 

1.  Explanations  of  Palestinian  climate  and  geography  are 
particularly  significant  of  the  location  of  the  readers  in  East  or 
West.  Thus  Mark  11,  13,  6  yap  Kaipos  ovk  r\v  avKOiv  invites  our 
notice  by  the  fact  that  the  evangelist  finds  it  needful  to  explain 
to  his  readers  that  Passover  was  "  not  the  season  of  figs."  Such 
information  regarding  the  climate  of  Jerusalem  might  be  re- 
quired at  Rome.  It  certainly  could  not  be  on  any  of  the  east- 
ern coasts  of  the  Mediterranean. 

Other  editorial  explanations  indicate  not  only  such  ignorance 
on  the  readers'  part  as  is  hardly  to  be  imagined  in  Oriental 
circles,  and  not  paralleled  in  Matthew  or  Luke,  but  also  a 
condition  of  the  evangelist's  own  mind,  neither  wholly  well- 
informed  nor  sympathetic.  It  is  inevitable  from  the  beginning 
aheady  made  to  push  the  enquiry  beyond  explanatory  glosses, 
and  seek  in  the  body  of  the  work  for  further  indications  of  the 
geographical  standpoint. 

2.  The  great  discourse  on  the  Doom  of  Jerusalem  (Mark 
13),  reproduced  with  some  Q  expansions  in  Matthew  24  and 
Luke  21,  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  GospeV  constructed,  as 
the  present  writer  has  endeavored  to  prove,^  on  the  basis  of 
Q  logia  with  special  reference  to  the  events  of  67-70  a.d.  (and 
hence  later  than  70),  using  the  visions  of  Daniel  to  weld  the 
whole  into  a  typical  apocalyptic  eschatology.  The  author's  prin- 

1  The  only  other  long  discourse  of  Mark  is  the  chapter  of  parables.  This  also 
in  the  interpretation  of  Red.-Marc.  is  a  preaching  of  judgment  against  the  people 
of  deaf  ears.  As  Swete  points  out  (Commentary,  p.  74),  the  other  long  discourses 
of  Mark  are  "  delivered  privately  to  the  Twelve." 

2  Journal  of  BibUcal  Literature,  XXVIII  (1909),  pp.  1-25. 


60  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

cipal  effort,  however,  is  to  restrain  rather  than  foment  eschato- 
logical  fervor,  and  for  this  purpose  he  not  only  shapes  his 
compilation  along  the  lines  of  the  Pauline  (or  Deutero-Pauline?) 
eschatology  of  2  Thess.  2,  but  even  borrows  its  peculiar  watch- 
word fxri  dpoelade  as  the  chief  burden  of  his  exhortation.  This 
reassuring  appeal,  "  be  not  wrought  up,"  sounds  the  keynote 
of  Red.-Marc,  warning  against  the  plausible  deceivers  who 
proclaim  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  even  in  many  cases 
declaring,  "  I  am  He,"  and  showing  deceptive  signs  and  won- 
ders. In  the  spirit  (and  to  some  extent  the  language)  of  2  Thess. 
2,  1-12  the  readers  are  warned  against  the  Antichrist  and  his 
false  prophets,  and  bidden  to  refuse  assent  to  their  efforts  at 
agitation,  whether  (1)  on  the  ground  of  general  catastrophes  in 
various  places  (13,  3-8),  or  (2)  more  specifically  on  the  ground 
of  the  visitation  of  Judea  and  Jerusalem  with  the  desolation 
predicted  by  Daniel  (verses  14-23). 

The  fact  that  such  detailed  prediction  of  the  fate  of  Jerusalem 
with  specific  appUcation  of  the  Danielle  visions  does  not  else- 
where appear  in  the  authentic  teaching  of  Jesus  need  not  here 
detain  us.  It  may  or  may  not  support  the  much  favored  theory 
of  an  eschatological  Flugblatt  incorporated  by  the  evangelist. 
We  will  not  even  dwell  upon  the  fact  (significantly  paralleled 
as  it  is  by  other  quasi-Pauline  phenomena  of  Mark)  that  the 
Antichrist  legend  finds  its  roots  (so  far  as  non-Markan  material 
is  concerned)  not  in  any  authentic  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  only 
in  Revelation  and  the  Pauline  (or  possibly  Deutero-Pauline) 
tract  known  as  Second  Thessalonians.  Let  the  historical  au- 
thenticity of  all  the  predictions  of  Mark  13,  14-20,  describing 
the  horrors  of  the  Jewish  war,  be  fully  granted,  despite  the 
contrast  they  present  to  the  more  general  moral  warnings  of 
Luke  12,  42-13,  9,  and  to  Jesus'  deprecation  of  attempts  to 
prognosticate  in  the  Q  logion  (Matthew  24,  25  ff.  =  Luke 
17,  21  ff.),  still  it  will  not  be  easy  to  explain  how  a  writer 
not  himself  an  outsider  should  speak  of  these  calamities  as  fall- 
ing on  "  those  that  are  in  Judea  "  (Mark  13,  14).  In  compari- 
son with  this  peculiarity  it  is  of  very  small  significance  that 
Matthew,  who  is  generally  acknowledged  to  write  from  the 
Palestinian  standpoint,  should  insert  the  word  eWecx^s  at  the 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  61 

beginning  of  the  third  and  closing  paragraph.  For  Matthew's 
aim  is  to  increase  faith  in  the  particular  eschatology  which  he 
takes  over  from  Mark  (in  an  interpretation  of  his  own),  rather 
than  to  hold  in  check,  as  does  Q  (and  to  a  less  extent  Mark), 
the  tendency  to  apocalyptic  superstition.  Mark,  however, 
writes  of  the  desolation  as  something  which  happens  to  "  those 
in  Judea."  Not  even  this  special  visitation  must  mislead  the 
church.  Only  when  "  the  powers  that  are  in  the  heavens  are 
shaken  "  (verse  25)  can  the  Coming  be  expected;  for  was  it  not 
an  essential  part  of  the  eschatology  of  Paul,  not  only  that  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles  must  be  fulfilled  (Rom.  9-11 ;  cf.  Mark  13, 
10),  but  also  (Eph.  6,  12)  that  the  real  struggle  is  "  not  against 
flesh  and  blood,  but  against  the  principalities  and  powers  in  the 
heavenly  regions  "? 

That  Matthew  and  Luke  have  taken  over  this  doom  chapter 
of  Mark  (13)  is  almost  a  matter  of  course.  At  their  time  of 
writing  no  other  course  would  be  conceivable  But  this  should 
not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  whatever  the  source  of  the  mate- 
rials, the  construction  is  a  composition  of  the  second  evangelist's 
own.  The  question  for  us  to  ask,  then,  is  whether  the  use  here 
made  of  Q  logia  and  apocalyptic  legend  is  such  as  we  should 
expect  from  a  converted  Jew  of  Rome.  We  shall  return  later 
to  the  question  of  the  "  Paulmism  "  of  Mark,  which  cannot  be 
wholly  disregarded  in  an  enquiry  as  to  provenance.  Meantime 
we  take  note  as  a  geographic  indication  of  some  value  that  the 
evangehst  speaks  of  the  events  of  a.d.  67-70  as  calhng  for  the 
flight  of  "  those  in  Judea  "  to  "  the  mountains." 

3.  The  impression  made  by  the  reference  to  the  flight  of 
"  those  in  Judea  "  is  confirmed  by  the  "  meagreness  "  of  geo- 
graphical data,  and  the  "  reticence  "  of  the  evangehst  in  regard 
to  "  the  complex  political  life  which  prevailed  in  Palestme  at 
the  time,"  which  are  noted  by  Swete,  but  which  the  commenta- 
tor feels  sure  are  "  not  due  to  ignorance."  ^ 

Our  own  knowledge  is  unfortunately  so  small  as  to  restrict 
to  narrowest  limits  the  possibility  of  argument  on  this  score. 
We  find,  for  example,  reference  in  Mark  8,  10  to  a  landing  on 
the  west  (?)  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  at  a  place  denominated 

»  Op.  cit.,  pp.  Ixxxii,  Ixxxv. 


62  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

Dalmanutha.  The  name  is  otherwise  unknown,  and  was  as 
much  a  puzzle  to  ancient  as  to  modern  geographers.  Matthew 
changes  to  Magadan  (=  Magdala?  Mageda?),  the  /5  text  has 
MeXeyada,  or  MayatSd.  Arthur  Wright  in  his  Greek  Synop- 
sis notes  the  simple  fact  that  "  no  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  word  Dalmanutha  has  been  found."  He  commends  the 
suggestion  of  Rendel  Harris  that  xniJ^^'iT  is  a  clerical  error 
of  an  early  scribe,  i  being  the  preposition  "of,"  h  the  preposi- 
tion "to"  and  NniJO  meaning  "the  parts";  so  that  the 
whole  sentence  runs:  "He  came  into  the  parts  of  —  into  the 
parts."  Here,  whatever  the  fact,  the  ignorance  will  be  charged 
not  to  author  or  transcriber  but  to  the  critic,  unable,  as  he  is, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  prove  the  non-existence  of  a 
place  so  named.  Even  were  it  possible  to  establish  this  "  uni- 
versal negative,"  the  evangelist  personally  would  still  escape. 
It  would  be  said  (as  actually  by  Rendel  Harris)  that  the  mis- 
understanding by  which  an  Aramaic  phrase  has  been  taken 
for  a  proper  name  is  a  "  clerical  error  of  an  early  scribe." 

Similar  difficulties  would  beset  any  attempt  by  the  critic  to 
show  geographical  error  in  Mark  11,  1,  where  the  earliest  text 
of  Mark  gives  "  Bethphage  and  Bethany,"  but  Matthew  has 
€ts  Br]d<l>ayr].  Bethphage  ("home  of  figs")  is  in  fact  a  village  on 
the  Mount  of  Olives  known  to  the  Talmud  and  to  Eusebius,^ 
and  is  suitable  to  the  context,  which  goes  on  to  refer  to  "  the 
village  (sing.)  over  against  you."  No  "  Bethany  "  is  traceable 
in  this  locality  except  as  derived  from  Mark.  The  true  solution 
seems  to  be  furnished  by  Origen,  who  informs  us  explicitly  that 
in  his  time  the  reading  of  Matthew  was  "  Bethphage,"  that  of 
Mark  "  Bethany,"  and  that  of  Luke  "  Bethphage  and  Beth- 
any," as  in  our  present  texts  of  Luke,  and  of  Mark  as  well.  The 
third  reading  is  almost  certainly  a  conflation  of  the  other  two. 
Perhaps  "  Bethphage  "  is  a  Palestinian  correction  of  the  inac- 
curate "  Bethany  "  of  (pre-Origenian)  Mark,  and  is  therefore 
substituted  by  Matthew,  who  makes  a  similar  correction  of 
Mark's  geography  in  Matt.  8,  28.  Luke  and  the  post-Origenian 
texts  of  Mark  conflate.  But  again  demonstration  breaks  down 
through  inadequate  knowledge.     Our  ignorance  both  of  the 

^  References  in  Swete  ad  loc. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  63 

ancient  geography  of  Palestine  and  of  the  history  of  the  text 
precludes  all  positive  assertion. 

In  spite  of  these  manifest  limitations  it  is,  nevertheless,  possi- 
ble to  adduce  strong  evidence  that  Mark  is  not  only  "  meagre  " 
in  geographical  data,i  but  inferior  in  knowledge  of  Palestinian 
geography  to  later  evangelists. 

(a)  The  "  city  "  whose  residents  flock  forth  to  see  Jesus  after 
he  has  exorcised  the  legion  of  devils  on  the  "  DecapoUs  "  shore 
of  the  Lake  (Mark  5, 1-20),  is  to  Mark  "  Gerasa,"  the  chief  city 
of  Decapohs  according  to  Josephus,  but  here  a  geographic  im- 
possibility which  Matthew  seeks  to  adjust  to  the  story  by  sub- 
stituting "  Gadara."  But  Origen,  visiting  the  region  in  the 
third  century,  easily  perceived  that  even  Gadara  is  still  too 
distant,  and  proposed  to  conjecture  a  "  Gergesa  "  from  the 
"  Girgashites  "  mentioned  in  Joshua.  Continued  enquiry  by 
travellers  since  Origen  has  succeeded  in  attaching  the  name 
"  Kersa  "  to  a  portion  of  the  eastern  littoral,  but  is  still  unable 
to  produce  either  "  steep  places,"  or  remains  of  any  "  city," 
such  as  the  story  requires.  The  plain  fact  seems  to  be  that  the 
author  of  this  characteristically  Markan  story  of  exorcism  failed 
to  reahze  the  remoteness  of  "  the  city  of  the  Gerasenes  "  in 
''Decapolis  "  from  the  Lake  of  Gahlee. 

(6)  Careful  as  he  is  to  distinguish  between  '  hamlets,' 
{ay pot),  'villages'  (Kconai),  'towns'  (Kco/i07r6Xeis),  and  'cities' 
(vroXeis),  Red.-Marc,  nevertheless,  refers  in  8,  23  and  26  to 
Bethsaida  Juhas,  the  southern  metropoUs  of  Philip's  kingdom, 
as  a  "  village."  In  6,  45  he  even  seems  to  think  of  it  as 
situated  west  of  Jordan  (verse  53),  which  leads  the  modem 
geographers  who  are  intent  chiefly  on  Gospel  harmony  to  in- 
sert two  Bethsaidas  on  the  map. 

(c)  In  Mark  7,  31  the  expression  of  the  source  (7,  24)  "bor- 
ders of  Tyre  and  Sidon,"  which  Matthew  15,  21-22  correctly 
understands  as  the  frontier  region  of  northern  Gahlee  border- 
ing on  Phoenicia,  is  taken  in  a  distributive  sense  as  implying 
two  separate  journeys,  first  to  Tyre,  afterwards  to  Sidon  (!); 

»  Compare,  for  example,  the  relative  richness  of  the  fourth  Gospel  in  identifiable 
situations  in  western  Palestine.  For  the  portion  of  the  country  actually  visited 
in  aU  times  by  the  pUgrim  tourist  (the  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Capernaum  through 
Samaria)  the  fourth  evangelist  shows  closer  acquaintance  than  any. 


64  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

whence  Jesus  returns  to  the  Sea  of  GaUlee,  "  through  the 
borders  of  Decapohs  "  {ava  ixeaop  toov  opioov  Ae/caxoXecos).  In 
order  to  reach  Caesarea  Phihppi,  the  scene  of  the  great  self- 
declaration  of  Jesus,  without  omitting  the  incidents  of  Dal- 
manutha  (?)  and  Bethsaida  (?)  in  8,  10  and  22,  a  journey  from 
Sidon  "  through  the  borders  of  Decapolis  "  may  have  seemed 
unavoidable  to  Red.-Marc,  but  he  has  never  succeeded  in 
making  this  journey  of  Jesus  in  partihus  infidelium  seem  plau- 
sible either  to  ancient  or  to  modern  minds.  Paul  gives  every 
indication  that  he  believed  Jesus  to  have  remained  "  a  minister 
of  the  circumcision  because  of  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers."  Luke  cuts  out  the  entire  section,  eliminating  even 
the  name  "  Caesarea  Philippi."  Matthew,  as  usual,  takes  the 
more  cautious  method  of  removing  the  difficulty  by  slight  and 
skilful  changes  of  the  wording,  so  that  Jesus  never  actually 
leaves  Jewish  territory  or  enters  a  "  city  of  the  Gentiles."  The 
healing  of  the  blind  man  "  of  Bethsaida  "  is  transferred  to  less 
objectionable  scenes  (cf.  Matthew  9,  27-31  and  20,  29-34  with 
Mark  8,  22-26);  while  for  Mark's  "villages  of  Caesarea 
Philippi "  Matthew  substitutes  "  regions  (nipr))  of  Caesarea 
Philippi,"  implying  only  a  journey  to  the  upper  waters  of  the 
Jordan.  In  reality,  whereas  the  source  may  very  well  have  had 
"borders  of  Tjo-e  and  Sidon"  and  "villages  (i.e.,  'daughter' 
towns,  as  in  Num.  21,  25,  32;  Neh.  11,  25,  27,  28,  30,  31,  etc.) 
of  Caesarea  Philippi,"  the  extraordinary  journey  of  Jesus  in 
Gentile  regions  sketched  in  Mark  7,  24-8,  27,  with  scarcely 
any  material  not  duplicating  his  earlier  narrative,  is  opposed  to 
all  we  should  infer  from  Paul  as  well  as  the  later  evangelists, 
and,  even  if  admitted,  is  described  by  terms  geographically  un- 
intelligible. 

4.  If  we  turn  from  Palestinian  geography  to  local  history, 
politics,  and  conditions,  we  find  even  Zahn  himself  constrained 
to  admit  that  "  in  Mark  6,  17  there  is  real  ignorance  of  the 
complicated  family  relationships  of  the  Herods."  This  under- 
states the  case.  Zahn's  own  elaborate  explanations  of  Mark's 
use  of  the  title  "  king  "  for  the  tetrarch  Antipas,  and  "  king- 
dom "  for  the  tetrarchy,  which  he  offers  to  hand  about  as 
royally  as  Ahasuerus  (cf.  Mark  6,  23  with  Esth.  5,  3,  6;  7,  2), 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  65 

fails  to  disguise  the  simple  fact  of  error,  which  for  the  most  part 
Matthew  corrects,  though  by  oversight  in  one  instance  (Matt. 
14,  9)  the  word  "  king  "  is  retained.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand, 
not  only  restores  to  Antipas  his  true  title,  but  suppresses  the 
whole  Markan  story.  This  is  in  truth  the  only  reasonable 
course  for  an  evangelist  havmg  before  him  the  far  truer  depic- 
tion of  the  Baptist  and  his  mission  supphed  by  the  Second 
Source;  for  the  inaccuracies  of  Mark  6,  17-29  are  so  flagrant 
as  to  lead  Holtzmann  to  apply  to  it  the  term  "  the  very  pattern 
of  a  legend."  Its  author  is  clearly  not  aware  that  the  Baptist 
met  his  fate  as  secretly  as  possible  in  the  lonely  frontier  fortress 
of  Machaerus,  but  depicts  it  as  an  accompaniment  and  foil  to 
scenes  of  revelry  in  the  palace  at  Tiberias,  "  when  Herod  on 
his  birthday  made  a  feast  to  his  great  ones  and  the  chief  men 
of  Galilee."  Instead  of  a  lonely  anchorite  of  the  Judean  desert 
to  whom  the  "  dwellers  in  Jerusalem  "  go  forth  in  idle  or  sup- 
erstitious curiosity  (Matt.  11,7  =  Luke  7,  24),  Mark  conceives 
the  prophet  as  an  Elijah  at  the  court  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  or 
a  Paul  before  Felix  and  Bernice,  denouncing  the  unworthy  king, 
plotted  against  by  the  wicked  queen.  The  Q  material  (Matt. 
11,  7-10  =  Luke  7,  24-28)  shows  a  far  more  correct  idea  of 
John's  activity  and  environment. 

Again  the  critic  cannot  fail  to  suspect  the  Markan  combina- 
tion of  "  Pharisees  and  Herodians  "  as  joint  conspirators  against 
Jesus'  life,  in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  any  party 
of  "  Herodians  "  before  the  accession  of  Agrippa  I  (41  a.d.). 
Here  again  we  are  limited  by  our  own  inabiUty  to  prove  a 
"  universal  negative  ";  but  it  is  worth  noting  in  view  of  the 
admitted  ignorance  of  Mark  as  to  the  complicated  family  re- 
lationships of  the  Herods,  and  his  demonstrable  dependence  on 
the  Second  Source,  that  in  the  latter  (Luke  13,  31  ff.;  cf. 
Matt.  23,  37 ff.)  the  Pharisees  appear  in  the  role  of  false  friends 
of  Jesus  seeking  to  drive  him  out  by  the  threat,  "  Herod  will  kill 
thee."  From  such  a  datum  the  editorial  representations  of 
Mark  3,  6;  8,  15,  and  12,  13,  would  be  readily  expHcable. 

We  are  also  limited  by  our  ignorance  on  the  constructive 
side.  In  spite  of  Zahn's  confidence,  the  ''Alexander  and 
Rufus  "  of  Mark  15,  21  are  not  identifiable.     Mark  stands 


66  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

alone,  it  is  true,  in  attaching  to  the  story  of  the  impressment  of 
"  Simon  of  Cyrene  "  to  bear  Jesus'  cross  the  statement  that 
this  was  ''  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus,"  and  as  Zahn 
remarks,  the  only  possible  purpose  of  the  addition  is  to  give 
greater  interest  to  the  story  by  connecting  it  with  what  was 
familiar  to  the  readers.  In  this  case  "  Simon  of  Cyrene  "  is 
clearly  unknown,  whereas  the  readers  have  knowledge  of 
"  Alexander  and  Rufus."  But  who  is  this  Alexander?  And 
who  is  Rufus  ?  It  is  possible  that  this  Rufus  is  the  same  men- 
tioned by  Paul  in  Rom.  16,  13,  although  we  hear  nothing  there 
of  *'  Alexander."  It  is  also  possible  that  the  "  letter  of  com- 
mendation "  for  Phoebe  from  which  the  greeting  in  Rom.  16, 
13  is  taken  was  originally  addressed  to  Rome,  though  there  is 
on  the  whole  better  reason  to  think  its  original  destination 
Ephesus.  The  uncertainties  of  the  case  are  so  considerable 
that  the  present  writer  must  renounce  the  attempt  to  find  posi- 
tive evidence  here  for  Roman  provenance,  and  run  the  risk 
of  being  classed  among  those  with  whom  "  further  discussion 
is  useless  "  because  of  their  lack  of  "  judgment."  ^ 

D.   The  ''  Paulinism  "  of  Mark 

From  the  indications  of  acquaintance  (or  the  lack  of  it)  with 
Palestinian  geography,  history,  and  local  conditions,  we  must 
turn  to  a  different  type  of  evidence  suggesting  Roman,  or  at 
least  Western,  provenance  for  Mark,  by  comparison  with  con- 
ditions as  reflected  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  more  especially 
those  addressed  to,  or  written  from,  Rome. 

So  far  from  overvaluing  this,  Zahn  falls  far  short  of  appreciat- 
ing the  full  significance  of  what  he  calls  "  the  tendency  among 
Roman  Christians  (reflected  in  Rom.  14)  that  influenced  Mark 
to  reproduce  in  such  great  detail  the  discourse  concerning  things 
clean  and  unclean  (7,  1-23),  and  generally  to  emphasize 
strongly  Jesus'  opposition  to  ceremonialism." 

Both  the  Roman  "  tendency  "  (which  Mark  does  not  really 
oppose,  but  of  which  this  Gospel  is  rather  representative),  and 
its  special  emphasis  on  "  Jesus'  opposition  to  ceremonialism  " 

^  Zahn,  Introduction,  II,  490. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  67 

in  general,  and  to  distinctions  of  meats  in  particular,  are  mat- 
ters which  demand  our  most  careful  scrutiny;  for  here  we  at 
last  touch  upon  the  most  distinctive  features  in  the  motive  and 
character  of  Mark.  If  a  relation  can  really  be  shown  between 
it  and  early  "  tendency  "  at  Rome  the  value  of  our  enquiry  into 
the  provenance  of  the  Gospel  will  be  self-evident. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  gives  unmistakable  evidence  of 
the  predominance  in  the  Roman  church  of  the  element  we 
should  expect  to  be  in  control  in  the  city  which  the  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles  looked  to  as  the  natural  centre  of  his  missionary 
field.  The  decisive  proof  is  that  the  practical  exhortations  for 
church  order  and  unity  at  the  close  of  the  Epistle  (Rom.  14, 
1-15, 13)  addressed,  as  so  frequently  in  Paul  (Gal.  6, 1 ;  1  Thess. 
5,  14;  2  Thess.  3,  6-15,  etc.),  to  those  "  having  the  leadership  " 
in  the  church,  have  as  their  prevailing  note  the  warning  against 
too  inconsiderate,  too  exclusively  self-regarding,  appUcation  of 
the  Pauline  principle  of  freedom  from  the  ceremonial  distinc- 
tions of  the  Law. 

As  at  Corinth,  whence  Paul  had  received  not  long  before 
a  request  for  advice  on  the  various  points  in  dispute  be- 
tween"  strong  "  (those  "of  Paul")  and  "weak"  (those  "of 
Cephas  "),  so  now  at  Rome  Paul  finds  it  necessary  to  curb  the 
vaunted  liberahsm  ^  of  those  who  claimed  to  be  his  own  "  imi- 
tators "  (1  Cor.  1,  12;  11,  1,  2)  by  reminding  them  that  he 
himself  had  always  sought  to  be  an  "  imitator  of  Christ,"  who 
"  for  the  sake  of  the  promises  made  to  the  fathers  "  had  volun- 
tarily subjected  himself  to  all  the  limitations  of  Mosaism,  not 
pleasing  himself,  but  content  to  share  the  reproach  {bvuhaubs) 
of  his  people  (Rom.  15, 1-13;  cf.  1  Cor.  8, 1-11, 1).  In  particu- 
lar, as  to  the  two  distinctive  features  of  Judaism  in  the  Gentile 
world,  the  distinctions  of  days  and  distinctions  of  meats,  Paul 
urges  (Rom.  14)  that  scruples  which  by  himself  in  common 
with  all  the  "  strong  "  are  clearly  perceived  to  be  needless,  but 
which  the  "  weak  "  do  not  venture  to  cast  aside,  should  not  of 

i  The  word  is  here  used  (with  apologies)  in  the  too  common  sense  of  mere 
relaxation  of  pre-existing  restraints.     Paul,  in  common  with  other      liberal 
leaders,  suffered  from  the  misrepresentation  of  followers  concerned  only  with  this 
negative  side  of  his  teaching. 


68  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

themselves  be  made  a  bar  to  the  admission  of  these  latter  to  the 
brotherhood.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  "  weak  "  consents  to 
keep  his  scruples  to  himself,  not  making  them  a  matter  of 
"  doubtful  disputations  "  by  the  attempt  to  impose  them  on 
others,  the  "  strong  "  should  make  a  corresponding  sacrifice  of 
conciliation.  He  should  be  willing  voluntarily  to  surrender  his 
proper  liberty  rather  than  use  it  at  the  risk  of  putting  a  stum- 
bling-block in  the  way  of  one  for  whom  Christ  died. 

An  exhortation  of  this  character  and  purpose,  carried  to  such 
large  extent,  could  not  possibly  occupy  the  place  of  main 
practical  emphasis  in  this  church-letter  had  not  the  community 
been  really  in  need  of  just  this  warning.  At  Rome,  then,  in 
55-60  A.D.  the  church  was  already  tending,  as  it  had  previously 
tended  at  Corinth,  to  outrun  the  liberalism  of  Paul  on  its 
practical  side,  under  the  cry:  "  All  things  are  lawful,  all 
days  are  holy,  all  meats  are  clean."  It  was  in  danger  of 
forgetting  the  Apostle's  self-imposed  limitation,  to  become 
"  all  things  to  all  men,"  weak  to  the  weak,  bound  to  those  not 
free,  under  the  law  (though  really  free  from  it),  to  those  who  still 
feared  it,  in  order  "  by  all  means  to  save  some  "  (Rom.  14,  13- 
23;  cf.  1  Cor.  9,  19-22). 

The  real  and  concrete  "occasions  of  stumbling  "  at  Rome 
were  the  Jewish  distinctions  of  meats  and  distinctions  of 
days  (Rom.  14,  1-6).  It  does  not  appear  that  Paul  appre- 
hended there  the  more  subtle  errors  of  the  Apollos  tendency 
prevailing  in  Corinth.  We  have,  in  fact,  as  little  ground  to 
expect  in  the  western  metropolis  appreciation  of  the  more 
mystical  and  deeper  elements  of  Pauline  doctrine  as  we  have 
evidence  that  they  had  in  reality  taken  any  perceptible  hold. 
Paul's  liberty  in  actual  practice,  his  disregard  for  the  well-known 
Jewish  distinctions  of  days  and  distinctions  of  meats,  deter- 
mined the  "Paulinism"  of  an  age  which  as  yet  knew  little  of  the 
great  Epistles.  They  had  "  been  informed  concerning  him  that 
he  taught  all  the  Jews  which  are  among  the  Gentiles  to  forsake 
Moses,  telUng  them  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  neither  to 
walk  after  the  customs."  They  were  not  informed  of  much  else. 
If  the  author  of  Acts  21, 21  insists  that  this  is  slander,  certainly 
those  who  claimed  freedom  as  disciples  "  of  Paul  "  had  exceed- 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  69 

ingly  strong  grounds  for  affirming  its  truth.  At  least  according 
to  Acts  21,  21  they  certainly  did  so  affirm.  It  is  the  over- 
emphasis of  this  negative  side  of  Paul's  teaching  which  the 
Apostle  strives  hard  to  counteract  both  in  First  Corinthians 
and  Romans.  His  effort  is  proof  positive  of  the  existence,  and 
even  the  predominance,  at  Rome  of  a  type  of  *'  Paulinism," 
which  while  sincerely  intending  to  "  imitate  "  the  Apostle  in  all 
things,  in  reality  overlooked  the  finer  side  of  his  teaching,  in 
particular,  his  considerate  regard  and  sympathetic  appreciation 
for  Jewish  scruples  and  fears  regarding  distinctions  of  meats  and 
days.  Our  contention  is  that  the  "  Paulinism  "  of  Mark  is  pre- 
cisely of  the  type  Paul  seeks  to  hold  in  check.  It  has  little  to 
do  with  the  literary  Paul,  but  is  characterized  by  exactly  this 
overbearing,  inconsiderate,  intolerant  attitude  of  the  "  strong  " 
toward  the  Jewish  "  distinctions." 

It  is  no  small  point  of  coincidence  between  Mark  and  Ro- 
mans that  the  Gospel  has  so  much  to  say  about  the  "  man- 
made  "  nature  of  the  Mosaic  observances  (7,  7,  8;  10,  9;  cf. 
Col.  2,  22).  It  is  at  least  equally  noteworthy  that  the  special 
polemic  of  the  evangelist  is  waged  against  the  two  particular 
points:  (1)  distinctions  of  days  (2,  23-3,  6);  (2)  distinctions 
of  meats  (7,  1-23). 

As  regards  theological  grounds  for  this  liberalism,  the  evangel- 
ist is  almost  totally  detached  from  the  distinctive  tenet  of  Paul 
(abolition  of  the  legal  relation  by  the  cross);  but  practically 
he  only  differs  from  Paul  as  did  the  unreflecting  Paulinists  of 
Corinth  and  Rome  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken.  Theologi- 
cally he  knows  that  sin  is  forgiven  on  simple  repentance  and 
faith,  no  matter  how  much  "  the  scribes  "  are  horrified  at  the 
claim  of  the  Son  of  Man  to  forgive  sins  (2,  1-12).  He  knows 
(very  much  more  vaguely)  that  this  forgiveness  is  somehow 
promoted,  if  not  conditioned,  by  Jesus'  death  on  the  cross 
(10,  45;  14,  24). 1  The  extreme  meagreness  of  what  he  has  to 
say  on  this  vital  doctrine  of  the  Pauhne  and  Deutero-Pauline 
Epistles,  the  gospel  of  the  "  atonement  "  or  "  reconcihation  " 
(KaraXkayij)  as  Paul  calls  it  (2  Cor.  5,  18-19),  is  perhaps  the 

1  On  the  relation  of  Mark  to  the  doctrine  of  the  suffering  servant  (the  KaraWayi, 
doctrine  of  Paul),  see  below. 


70  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

most  remarkable  thing  about  Mark's  soteriology.  It  is  as  un- 
Pauline  a  feature  as  anything  in  the  Gospel.  However,  even 
this  little  is  greatly  diminished  in  Matthew,  and  has  entirely 
disappeared  in  Luke-Acts.  Positively,  then,  Mark  offers  a 
gospel  of  forgiveness  by  repentance  and  faith  (1,  15)  as  in  the 
Second  Source  (Matt.  21,  32  =  Luke  7,  29,  50  0,  though  with- 
out the  Lukan  explanation  and  defense  (cf.  Mark  2,  1-12  with 
Luke  7,  36-50).  This  soteriology  is  connected  very  vaguely 
with  a  doctrine  of  atonement  through  the  cross.  Negatively 
Red.-Marc.  shows  his  hostility  to  the  Law  in  a  different  way 
from  Paul.  The  Apostle  objects  to  it  only  as  a  temporary  divine 
ordinance  retained  in  authority  after  it  had  been  divinely  super- 
seded. Mark  objects  to  it  per  se.  To  Mark  the  Jewish  ritual 
observances,  irrespective  of  the  distinction  introduced  by 
Matthew  between  Law  and  tradition,  "  plantation "  and 
"  hedge  "  (Matt.  15,  12-14),  are  in  general  "  ordinances  of 
men  "  (7,  7-8,  14-19;  10,  10-12). ^  Jewish  set  fasts  no  more 
agree  with  the  new  faith  than  a  patch  of  old  cloth  on  a  new 
garment  (2,  18-22).  Jewish  sabbaths  have  no  authority  for  the 
Son  of  Man,  and  become  an  instrument  of  cruelty  and  wicked- 
ness in  the  hands  of  the  Pharisees  (2,  23-3,  6).^  As  in  the  Sec- 
ond Source,  it  is  Jesus'  message  of  forgiveness  to  publicans  and 
sinners  and  his  consorting  with  them  which  first  evokes  opposi- 
tion to  him  on  the  part  of  "  the  scribes;  "  but  in  Mark  that 
which  directly  leads  to  the  plots  against  his  life  on  the  part  of 
"  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  "  is  his  defiance  of  the  Mosaic 
law  of  the  sabbath  (3,  6).  There  is  no  attempt  (in  the  true 
text)  to  interpret  constructively  the  sanctification  of  special 
days.  Fasting  and  sabbath-keeping  are  treated  simply  as  Jew- 
ish practises  which  the  new  and  higher  authority  overrides.  If 
wedding  guests  may  disregard  the  semiweekly  Jewish  fast-days, 

^  On  the  Q  representation  of  "  John  as  Preacher  of  Justification  by  Faith  "  see 
my  article  under  this  title  in  Expositor,  8,  XVI,  93  (September,  1918). 

^  This  would  seem  to  have  been  the  general  Gentile  point  of  view.  It  is  equally 
characteristic  of  the  source  employed  in  Acts  9,  32-11,  18,  though  repudiated 
by  Red.-Luc.  (Acts.  15). 

^  The  proverb  (quoted  also  in  the  Talmud)  of  2,  27,  which  gives  a  constructive 
ground  for  proper  disregard  of  the  sabbath  is  unauthentic.  It  fails  to  appear  in 
either  Synoptic  parallel  and  is  wanting  in  the  /3  text. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  71 

much  more  the  disciples  of  the  Bridegroom  —  at  least  while  he 
is  with  them.  If  David  with  his  men  may  disregard  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  shewbread,  much  more  Jesus  and  his  disciples  the 
sanctity  of  the  sabbath.  The  issue  is  baldly  that  of  the  stronger 
authority.  Jesus  resorts  to  miracle;  the  Pharisees  to  judicial 
murder. 

Jesus'  final  withdrawal  from  Galilee  is  brought  about,  ac- 
cording to  Mark  7,  1-24,  by  the  attempt  of  the  scribes  from 
Jerusalem  to  impose  upon  him  and  his  disciples  the  Mosaic 
distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean  meats.  Jesus  appeals  to  Isaiah 
for  proof  that  they  are  a  people  of  "  hypocrites,"  whose  observ- 
ances are  "  lip-worship."  A  logion  which  in  the  Q  form 
(Matt.  23,  25-26  =  Luke  11,  39^1)  merely  subordinates  cere- 
monial and  external  to  inward  purity,  as  in  the  prophets,  is 
greatly  extended  and  elaborated  in  the  same  Markan  connection 
(cf.  Mark  7,  1-2,  5  with  Luke  11,  37-38).  Red.-Marc.  seeks  to 
prove  that  Jesus  explicitly  abolished  all  the  Mosaic  distinctions 
of  meats,  and  that  he  called  the  multitude  up  to  him  for  the 
purpose  of  making  his  meaning  and  intention  unmistakable 
(7,  14-23).  Shortly  after  (10,  1-12),  on  a  challenge  by  the 
Pharisees,  he  directly  sets  aside  the  Mosaic  ordinance  of  divorce 
as  "  adultery,"  contrasting  even  this  as  man-made  (verse  9) 
with  God's  intention  as  shown  in  the  creation  itself.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  Luke  omits  both  these  radical  passages  of  Mark, 
while  Matthew  so  changes  them  as  to  make  Jesus  merely  favor 
one  school  of  interpreters  against  the  other. 

In  the  face  of  the  history  of  Paul's  conflict  with  the  older 
Apostles  over  this  question  of  holy  food  and  holy  days,  and 
especially  in  the  face  of  his  admission  that  for  the  sake  of  the 
divinely  promised  prerogative  of  Israel  Jesus  had  been  subject 
to  the  Law  (Gal.  4,  4-5;  Rom.  15,  3,  8-9),  it  is  impossible  not 
to  regard  as  exaggerated  this  Markan  representation.  It  is  not 
true  Paulinism,  but  the  "  strong  "  doctrine  of  the  Corinthian 
and  Roman  "  imitator  of  Paul  "  which  makes  Jesus  explicitly 
override  and  abolish  the  very  mstitutions  and  ordinances  of 
Moses.i    In  the  Q  paraUels  Jesus  speaks  in  no  such  harsh  and 

1  Matthew  naturaUy  amends  Mark  by  minute  changes  intended  to  prove  (what 
is  doubtless  the  historical  fact)  that  Jesus  merely  adopted  the  broader  mterpreta- 


72  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

peremptory  accents  in  proclaiming  the  glad  tidings  of  forgive- 
ness; and  even  the  ceremonial  distinctions  of  holy  days  and 
holy  foods  are  treated  with  relative  respect.  In  Matthew  and 
Luke  the  Markan  radicalism  is  toned  down  or  omitted.^  It 
may,  of  course,  be  a  Jew  who  represents  the  Master  in  this  atti- 
tude toward  the  institutions  and  religious  observances  of  Juda- 
ism, so  much  harsher,  so  much  less  appreciative,  than  that  of  the 
Gentile  Luke;  but  the  real  point  of  interest  is  not  so  much  the 
possible  idiosyncracy  of  the  evangelist  as  the  disposition  of 
those  for  whom  he  wrote;  and  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  his 
representation  attaining  to  quasi-canonical  acceptance  in  any 
church  whose  tendencies  were  not  of  the  "  strong  "  type  which 
Rom.  14,  1-15,  13,  shows  to  have  been  predominant  at  Rome. 

Let  us  not  misconceive  or  exaggerate  the  anti-Judaism  of 
Mark.  This  Gospel  has  not  the  bitter  hostility  of  Matthew 
against  the  particular  class  and  sect  who  in  Matthew's  view  are 
responsible  for  his  people's  apostasy  and  downfall,  the  "  blind 
leaders  of  the  blind,"  the  "  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites," 
whose  fate  will  be  "  the  damnation  of  Gehenna  "  (Matt.  15,  14; 
23,  33).  But  neither  does  Matthew  generalize  the  charge  of 
"  hypocrisy  "  against  "  this  people  "  (Mark  7,  5-6)  ^  nor  char- 
acterize the  whole  system  of  distinctions  of  meats  and  "  wash- 
ings of  cups  and  pots  and  brasen  vessels  "  (Mark  7,  3-4)  as  a 
"  vain  worship  "  practised  by  "  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews." 

In  the  later  period  of  bitter  hostility  between  Church  and 
Synagogue  an  Ephesian  evangeUst  speaks  without  discrimina- 
tion of  Jesus'  opponents  as  simply  "  the  Jews."  So  even  at  a 
much  earlier  date  discrimination  between  Law  and  Tradition, 
synagogue  leaders  and  "  people  of  the  land,"  could  seem  over- 
refined  to  writers  and  readers  of  the  remoter,  western  regions 
of  the  Empire.  In  short  all  the  Gospels  are  anti-Judaistic.  So 
is  Paul.  But  some  Gospels  are  more  discriminating  than  others. 
Mark  in  its  antipathy  to  Judaism  leans  rather  to  the  side  of  the 

tion  applied  by  earlier  prophets  and  contemporary  teachers.  The  contrast,  how- 
ever, between  the  original  Mark,  and  Mark  as  corrected  by  Matthew  and  Luke, 
is  eloquent  of  relative  nearness  to,  and  sympathy  for,  Judaism. 

1  So  also  in  the  a  text  of  Mark  2,  27. 

2  Didache,  however,  (c.  8)  applies  the  epithet  to  the  Jews  in  general  as  in 
Mark. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  73 

fourth  Gospel,  where  Jesus'  opponents  are  "  the  Jews,"  and 
where  he  speaks  to  them  of  "  your  law,"  than  to  that  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke.  He  has  only  a  vanishing  trace  (Mark  12,  38- 
40)  of  the  Q  woes  upon  scribes  and  Pharisees,  whereas  in 
Luke  11,  37-54  these  are  still  prominent  and  discriminating; 
while  in  Matt.  23,  even  if  Scribe  and  Pharisee  are  no  longer  kept 
properly  distinct  but  blended  in  one  anti-Christian  class,  the 
invective  is  elaborated  and  extended  both  quantitatively  and 
qualitatively.  Each  Gospel  reflects  its  own  period  and  environ- 
ment. The  Ephesian  evangehst  presents  as  the  opposition  to 
Jesus  "  the  Jews  "  as  they  are  known  in  his  time.  Matthew 
opposes  the  reconstructed  synagogue  regime  of  90-100  a.d. 
Luke  and  Mark  both  commingle  data  characterized  by  true 
historical  insight,  which  they  derive  from  their  sources,  with 
a  larger  or  smaller  amount  of  misunderstanding  and  confusion 
supplied  by  the  later  hand,  Red.-Luc,  for  example,  in  16,  14 
attempts  to  create  a  logical  connection  with  the  preceding  con- 
text by  alleging  avarice  (!)  as  a  distinctive  sin  of  the  Pharisees.^ 
The  point  for  us  to  observe,  however,  is  that  in  this  commixture 
the  proportion  of  the  authentic  and  correct  to  the  late  and  in- 
correct is  decidedly  greater  in  Luke  than  in  Mark. 

Thus  in  Mark  2,  23,  if  656p  iroLelv  be  authentic — Matt,  and 
D  omit  —  and  not  a  mere  misrendering  of  the  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic  idiom  for  "  went  along  plucking  "  {odou  Troielcrdai), 
Red.-Marc.  holds  that  the  Pharisees  objected  to  what  the  dis- 
ciples were  doing  as  being  equivalent  to  "  road-building " 
{odov  TTouZv)  on  the  sabbath.  Of  course  some  sort  of  manual 
labor  is  the  ground  of  pettifogging  complaint,  not  the  mere 
eating  of  the  grain,  for  this  was  expressly  allowed.  Luke  6, 
1  restores  sense  by  supplying  the  act  to  which  objection  was 
really  taken.  They  were  "  rubbing  out  the  kernels  with  their 
hands  "  (xl/oixovres  rats  x^pf^'i-v)  and  so  (technically)  threshing.^ 

1  The  true  connection  appears  by  omitting  16,  1-13,  and  attaching  after  verse 
15  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and  Publican  (18,  9-14).  The  really  distinctive  sin 
of  the  Pharisee  (self-righteousness)  is  described  correctly  in  verse  15.  But  Red.- 
Luc.  changes  the  order  for  reasons  of  his  own.  See  Bacon,  "  Order  of  Lukan 
Interpolations,"  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  XXXVII  (1918),  pp.  42,  43. 

2  The  comment  of  Gould  (International  Critical  Commentary),  though  ap- 
proved by  Swete,  is  an  example  of  that  sacrifice  of  the  text  to  the  supposed  exi- 


74  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

The  superiority  of  Luke  to  Mark  on  this  score  of  appreciation 
of  things  Jewish  is  more  strikingly  evinced  in  the  story  of  Jesus' 
arrest  and  trial,  which  in  the  nature  of  the  case  did  not  admit 
the  formal  convening  (at  midnight !)  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  the 
house  of  Annas;  still  less  their  dismissal  after  trial  and  con- 
demnation of  Jesus  (through  agency  of  suborned  witnesses), 
and  their  reconvening  at  dawn  to  accuse  Jesus  before  Pilate. 
Even  did  the  few  hours  of  time  permit  all  this  official  action, 
the  very  last  thing  desired  by  Jesus'  priestly  enemies  was  to  as- 
sume official  responsibility  for  his  fate.  The  more  secretly, 
expeditiously,  and  irresponsibly  he  could  be  handed  over  to 
Pilate  as  an  insurrectionist  the  better  for  their  purpose;  pub- 
licity would  be  ruinous.  In  general,  therefore,  as  Brandt  ^  has 
so  clearly  shown,  the  Markan  representation  of  a  formal  trial 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  in  which  Jesus  takes  the  part  in  maintain- 
ing his  own  claim  to  be  the  exalted  "  Son  of  Man  "  which  was 
taken  later  by  Christian  martyrs,  whereas  the  supreme  repre- 
sentative council  of  the  Jewish  people  plays  the  part  of  false 
accuser,  must  be  regarded  as  largely  imaginative.  Its  most 
incredible  feature  of  all,  however,  is  produced  by  Red. -Marc's 
insertion  of  this  scene  of  trial  in  14,  53  6-64,  between  the  state- 
ment (of  his  source)  that  the  posse  of  arrest  "  led  Jesus  away 
to  the  high-priest  "  and  its  continuation  in  verse  65  that  some 
of  them  (i.e.,  the  menials  who  held  the  victim)  began  to  spit  on 
him,  and  to  cover  his  face  and  buffet  him,  and  to  say  unto  him 
"  prophesy!"  The  effect  of  this  insertion  is  that  the  "  some  " 
who  engage  in  this  brutal  abuse  are  members  of  the  Jewish 
senate  (!)  at  the  close  of  a  formal  session  of  exceptional  solem- 
nity, a  session  attended  (we  are  to  suppose)  by  a  Joseph  of 
Arimathea  and  a  Nicodemus. 

Luke  has  not  entirely  eliminated  the  impossible  Markan  trial 
scene,  but  he  has  at  least  postponed  it  till  daylight  (Luke  22, 

gencies  of  the  sense  which  is  the  mortal  sin  of  the  exegete.  "To  make  a  road  by 
plucking  the  ears  "  may  be  "  an  absurd  way  of  making  a  road,"  but  absurdity  is 
just  that  of  which  Red.-Marc.  would  convict  the  Pharisees  who  make  the  charge. 
The  rabbinic  parallels  cited  by  J.  Lightfoot  (Horae  Hebraicae,  on  Matt.  12,  2) 
show  that  the  complaint  may  also  have  been  directed  against  the  plucking  as 
being  a  kind  of  "  reaping." 

^  Evangelische  Geschichte,  1893. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  75 

66-71),  and  he  attributes  the  brutal  abuse  of  the  prisoner  to 
"  the  men  that  held  him  "  in  detention  until  daylight  in  the 
courtyard  of  the  high  priest's  palace. 

The  noticeable  point  about  the  inferiority  of  Mark  to  Luke 
in  this  instance  is  not  merely  the  earlier  evangelist's  lower  de- 
gree of  appreciation  of  things  Jewish,  but  also  the  attitude  of 
general  antipathy  which  makes  the  misrepresentation  possible. 
Such  a  conception  would  hardly  be  developed  and  find  currency 
in  circles  where  men  had  actually  seen  sessions  of  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrin.  In  short  the  indiscriminate  anti-Judaism  of  Mark 
makes  it  extremely  improbable  that  it  owes  its  present  form  to 
an  Oriental  environment.  Compared  with  the  tendencies  of 
which  Paul  seems  chiefly  apprehensive  at  Rome,  it  confirms  to 
no  small  extent  the  tradition  of  Roman  provenance. 

E.   Attitude  toward  Jewish-Christian  Leaders 

Connected  with  this  anti-Jewish  radicalism  of  Mark  is  a 
phenomenon  of  the  Gospel  in  which  it  contrasts  even  more 
conspicuously  with  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  whose  character 
would  be  almost  unaccountable  in  the  East  —  or  indeed  in  the 
West  at  any  period  much  later  than  First  Peter  (87  a.d.).  I 
refer  to  the  depreciatory  attitude  of  this  Gospel  toward  the 
Galilean  Apostles,  especially  Peter,  and  toward  the  kindred  of 
the  Lord,  the  so-called  dccrToawot,  who  formed  a  sort  of  caliphate 
at  the  centre  of  the  Palestinian  mother  church  until  its  dis- 
persal in  135  A.D. 

When  we  reflect  that  the  wide  and  dominating  influence  se- 
cured by  Mark  toward  the  close  of  the  first  century  was  due  to 
the  claim  put  forth  on  its  behalf  (a  claim  which  is  m  some  de- 
gree and  m  a  limited  sense  justified  by  the  internal  e\'idence) 
that  it  represents  aTvoiivrjixovehixaTa  XleVpoi;,  there  can  be  few 
things  more  startling  than  to  take  unbiased  account  of  its  actual 
report  wherever  the  individual  figure  of  Peter  appears. 

At  bottom  it  is  apparent  that  many  elements  of  the  Markan 
story,  especially  at  beginning  and  end,  must  be  derived  from 
Peter.  The  scenes  of  the  Begmnings  at  Capernaum  (1,  16-39; 
2,  1-4,  11-12)  and  of  the  Night  of  Betrayal  (14,  17-54,  65-72) 
are  not  explicable  unless  based,  more  or  less  directly,  on  Peter's 


76  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

story.  Nevertheless  the  Gospel  did  not  win  its  first  standing 
under  the  name  of  Peter,  but  under  that  of  one  of  the  heuten- 
ants  of  Paul.  Moreover,  so  far  from  giving  special  prominence 
or  commendation  to  Peter,  as  is  done  in  Luke-Acts,  and  still 
more  strikingly  in  Matthew,^  Mark  never  introduces  the  Apostle 
to  the  circumcision  for  any  individual  part  without  making  him 
the  target  for  severe  reproof  and  condemnation. 

1.  This  manifestly  applies  to  the  story  of  the  Night  of  Be- 
trayal, where  Peter's  boastful  claim  to  a  loyalty  beyond  that 
of  any  of  the  rest  marks  the  beginning  (14,  29-31 )  of  a  narrative 
which  makes  Peter  the  example  of  unfaithful  watching  (14,  37; 
cf.  Luke  22,  45-46),  and  whose  climax  (verses  54,  65-72)  is 
Peter's  humiliating  and  cowardly  denial  of  his  Master  at  the 
challenge  of  a  maid-servant.  True,  as  the  surviving  references 
in  14,  27-28  and  16,  7  imply,  this  story  of  Peter's  denial  was 
originally  but  the  prelude  to  the  Apostle's  "  turning  again," 
the  story  of  how  the  church  first  came  to  conscious  life  through 
the  resurrection  faith  when  Peter  "  stabhshed  his  brethren  " 
in  his  own  new-born  faith.^  For  this  pioneer  triumph  of  the 
faith  over  the  gates  of  Sheol  that  had  closed  upon  Jesus,  Peter 
deserves  the  name  of  its  foundation  "  Rock."  None  is  more 
prompt  than  Paul  himself  to  acknowledge  a  supreme  and  com- 
mon obligation  from  "  circumcision  "  and  "  uncircumcision  " 
alike  to  him  who  had  been  first  to  receive  the  revelation  of  the 
risen  Lord  (1  Cor.  15,  5;  cf.  Gal.  2,  7-8).  But  this  is  just  the 
portion  of  the  Petrine  story  which  Mark  (as  we  know  it)  has 
suppressed. 

Mark,  in  the  oldest  form  known  to  us,  breaks  off  abruptly  at 
16,  8,  leaving  unfulfilled  the  promise  to  "  the  disciples  and 
Peter  "  of  an  appearance  "  in  Galilee."  Nor  can  this  abrupt 
ending  be  due  to  accident.    Mere  mutilation  of  one  particular 

1  See  Bacon,  "Petrine  Supplements  of  Matt."  in  Expositor,  8,  XIII,  (1917), 73. 

2  Luke  22,  28-32  has  a  parallel  fragment  also  attaching  the  story  of  Simon's 
turning  again  to  the  "  covenant  "  (diarie-nfii.)  of  the  Supper.  The  Petrine  Supple- 
ment of  Matt.  14,  28-33  shows  (if  the  conclusions  of  the  Expositor  article  above 
cited  are  correct)  that  the  story  of  the  Walking  on  the  Sea  (victory  over  Sheol) 
symboUzes  the  ultimate  triumph  of  Peter's  faith  (through  interposition  of  the  risen 
Christ)  over  his  earher  collapse.  These  fragments,  together  with  a  few  others  less 
important,  are  all  that  survive  of  what  Paul  refers  to  in  1  Cor.  15,  1-11  as  the 
original  and  apostolic  resurrection  story. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE     •  77 

MS  would  not  account  for  it  unless  this  ms  were  the  only  one 
obtainable  for  multipHcation;  and  even  on  this  highly  fanciful 
supposition  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  no  oral  tradition  re- 
mained from  which  an  early  editor  could  reconstruct  the  story. 
The  tradition  known  to  "  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  " 
in  Paul's  time  as  kindred  to  their  own  experience  did  not  sud- 
denly cease  to  exist.  It  has  disappeared  from  Mark  because 
something  different  was  preferred.  The  change  which  begins 
in  Mark  and  from  it  passes  on  to  Matthew  and  Luke  is  nothing 
less  than  a  revolt  from  the  apostolic  resurrection-gospel  re- 
ported in  1  Cor.  15,  1-11,  whose  primary  manifestation  is  "  to 
Peter."  In  place  of  this  common  narrative  proclaimed  by  all 
(verse  11)  in  Paul's  time,  Mark  has  ''  another  gospel,"  of  which 
not  one  hint  or  trace  appears  in  Paul.  The  nucleus  of  this 
secondary  resurrection-gospel,  which  knows  no  more  of  the 
incidents  of  the  apostolic  than  the  apostolic  knows  of  it,  is  the 
story  of  the  Empty  Tomb  reported  by  the  women.  This  story 
begins  the  new  theme  which  is  taken  up  in  15,  40.  After  Mark 
15,  40-16,  8,  room  was  still  found  (in  a  form  of  Mark  no  longer 
extant)  for  an  appearance  "  to  Peter  and  the  Eleven."  But 
the  bringing  in  of  this  as  a  kind  of  supplement,  after  the  women 
have  received  the  Easter  message,  is  manifestly  secondary,  and 
the  mutilated  Mark  of  the  earliest  mss  has  suppressed  even 
this.^  A  Gospel  in  which  the  original  resurrection  appearance 
to  Peter  is  first  made  secondary  to  the  story  of  the  women  at 
the  sepulchre,  and  next  cancelled  altogether,  can  hardly  have 
developed  where  Peter  was  the  supremely  revered  authority. 

2.  Peter  plays  an  individual  part  in  but  three  other  pas- 
sages of  Mark.2  The  first  of  these  is  the  so-called  Confession  of 
Peter,  from  the  fact  that  in  Matthew's  reconstructed  form  of  the 
story  it  tells  of  the  original  confession  of  Jesus  as  "  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Living  God."    Matthew  (not  Mark)  follows  this 

^  A  trace  still  remains  in  Ev.  Petri;  but  here  too  the  story  breaks  off  at  the 
point  where  the  disciples,  ignorant  of  the  women's  experience,  have  spent  the 
remainder  of  the  Passover  week  in  Jerusalem  "  mourning  and  weeping  "  in  hiding 
from  the  Jews.  Thereafter,  as  in  John  21,  1  ff.,  they  return  under  Peter's  lead,  to 
their  fishing  in  Galilee. 

2  The  reminder  Mark  11, 21  is  entirely  colorless,  and  can  scarcely  be  reckoned  an 
"  individual  part." 


78  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

up  with  the  well-known  Beatification  of  Peter  for  the  revela- 
tion and  his  endowment  with  the  power  of  the  keys  (Matt.  16, 
16-20).  Doubtless  in  its  basic  feature  (Peter  as  leader  of  the 
Twelve  in  the  acceptance  of  the  messianistic  program  now  pro- 
posed by  Jesus)  Matthew's  reconstruction  restores  a  genuine 
element  of  the  history  which  Mark  obscures.  For  in  Mark  there 
is  no  revelation.  Peter  merely  answers  as  he  is  expected  to 
answer.  To  all  except  "  those  without  "  Jesus  in  Mark  has 
been  "  the  Christ  "  from  the  baptism.  Even  ''  those  without  " 
would  know  it  from  the  unwilling  witness  of  shrieking  demons, 
did  not  Jesus  purposely  silence  them.^  Per  contra,  Peter  be- 
comes at  this  point  the  representative  and  spokesman  of  the 
false  (Jewish)  idea  of  Christhood  which  in  the  Second  Source 
is  enunciated  by  Satan  ( !)  and  incurs  the  frightful  Apage 
Satanas  of  the  Temptation  story,  accompanied  by  the  declara- 
tion that  his  opposition  to  the  gospel  of  the  cross  represents  the 
things  "  of  men,"  not  those  "  of  God  "  (Mark  8,  27-33). 

3.  The  second  of  the  remaining  individual  appearances  of 
Peter  in  Mark  repeats,  in  the  symbolic  form  of  apocalyptic 
vision,  the  lesson  of  the  incident  of  the  Confession  of  which  we 
have  just  spoken.  On  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  "  Peter, 
James  and  John  "  receive  the  revelation  of  the  true  nature  of 
the  "  Son  of  God,"  and  of  his  calling  to  be  a  redeemer  from 
death  (Mark  9,  2-10).  Peter  plays  an  individual  part  only  to 
receive  rebuke  for  his  "  ignorant  "  desire  to  substitute  a  perma- 
nent abiding  with  the  Clirist  in  the  "  tabernacles  "  of  the  pre- 
sent fleshly  body  ^  for  "  metamorphosis  "  into  the  body  of 
glory.     The  imaginative  vision-story  suffuses  the  matter-of- 

^  On  this  Markan  "  hiding  of  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  from  those  without," 
see  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimniss,  1901 .  The  common  impression  that  the  disciples 
first  learn  of  Jesus'  Christhood  at  Caesarea  PhUippi  (Mark  8,  27-30)  is  due  to  the 
modern  line  of  approach,  through  Matt.  16,  17.  Viewed  simply  in  their  own  hght, 
unaffected  by  later  parallels,  the  series  of  statements  Mark  1, 1, 11,  24,  34;  2,  10, 
19,  28;  3,  11;  4,  41  makes  a  very  different  impression.  It  is  the  false  ideal  of 
Christhood,  the  Jewish  ideal,  intolerant  of  a  suffering  and  dying  Christ,  which  is 
rebuked  (in  Peter  as  its  spokesman)  in  Mark  8,  27-33.  The  Temptation  story 
has  the  same  function  in  Q,  the  Tempter  being  here  the  spokesman  of  the  un- 
worthy ideal. 

^  In  this  sense  ffKTjvf),  ffKrjvovv,  are  almost  technical  terms  in  the  New  Testament. 
Cf.  2  Cor.  5,  1;  John  1,  14;  2  Peter  1,  14. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  79 

fact  narrative,  into  the  midst  of  which  it  has  been  rather  ab- 
ruptly interjected,  with  the  doctrinal  content  of  2  Cor.  3,  12  — 
5,  10.  Peter's  apostleship  is  thus  enriched  with  the  mystical 
meaning  given  by  Paul  to  the  "ministry  of  the  new  covenant." 

4.  The  third  remaining  individual  appearance  of  Peter  in 
Mark  is  as  spokesman  for  the  Twelve  in  the  appeal:  "  Lo,  we 
have  left  all  and  followed  thee;  what  then  shall  we  have?  " 
(Mark  10,  28-31 ).  The  rebuke  called  forth  by  this  self-seeking 
petition  forms  part  of  a  group  the  lesson  of  which  is  renuncia- 
tion (Mark  10,  13-45;  cf.  Luke  14,  25-35). 

From  special  references  to  Peter,  we  may  pass  next  to  Markan 
references  to  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  James  and  John,  who  in 
ancient  tradition  stand  next  after  Peter  in  consideration.  The 
pair  take  a  more  prominent  part  even  than  Peter  in  the  renunci- 
ation group  just  mentioned,  because  of  their  martyr  fate.  In 
voluntarily  undertaking  to  share  Jesus'  cup  they  go  to  the  ex- 
treme limit  of  renunciation.  Even  James  and  John,  however, 
are  here  denied  a  claim  to  special  rank  or  privilege.  Their  am- 
bitious request,  like  Peter's,  is  treated  by  Mark  as  presumptu- 
ous (10,  32-45).  The  only  other  separate  appearance  of  "  the 
sons  of  Zebedee  "  in  Mark  is  the  mention  of  their  designation 
as  "  sons  of  thunder  "  in  3,  17.  The  significance  of  it  is  proble- 
matical. On  the  other  hand,  in  Mark  9,  38-39,  "  John  "  is 
rebuked  for  narrow  intolerance.  No  other  separate  mention  is 
made  of  this  "  pillar  "  apostle.  The  group  "Peter,  James,  and 
John  "  appears  on  several  occasions,  the  special  significance  of 
which  is  not  entirely  clear,  ^  and  in  two  instances  (1,  16-20; 
13,  3)  Andrew,  Peter's  brother,  is  added  to  the  group.  Andrew 
has  no  individual  role  whatever.  No  other  Apostle  plays  any 
part  in  Mark.  Only  Matt.  10,  3,  in  a  gloss  attached  to  the  name 
"  Matthew,"  attempts  to  say  which  of  the  Twelve  is  to  be 
identified  with  "  Levi  son  of  Alpheus  "  (Mark  2,  14),  and 
"  Matthew  "  is  on  this  ground  substituted  for  "  Levi  "  in  the 

1  See,  however,  Bacon,  "  The  Martyr  Apostles,"  m  Expositor,  7,  IV,  21  (Sept., 
1907).  The  two  Jameses,  both  martyrs,  both  prominent  in  the  Jerusalem 
church,  were  naturally  confused  at  an  early  date.  It  is  possible  that  one  reason 
for  the  Markan  group  "Peter,  James,  and  John  "  is  the  fact  that  Paul  mentions 
these  three  names  as  those  of  the  "  pillars  "  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  2,  9),  though  the 
"  James  "  there  meant  ia  not  the  Son  of  Zebedee. 


80  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

dependent  version  of  the  story  (Matt.  9,  9).  Levi  also  remains 
functionless  in  the  rest  of  Mark.^  The  amount  and  character  of 
this  mention  of  individual  Apostles  and  groups  of  Apostles  in 
Mark  suggests  slight  interest  in  the  body  so  revered  in  the  Pales- 
tinian church,  and  that  interest  not  untinctured  with  opposition. 
It  is  not  easy  to  imagine  such  references  had  the  Gospel  grown 
up  in  the  circle  where,  at  the  very  time  the  Elders  Aristion  and 
John  were  relating  their  "  traditions,"  others  of  the  same  group 
could  relate  "  what  Andrew  or  Peter  had  said,  or  Philip,  or 
Thomas,  or  James,  or  John,  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  of  the 
Lord's  disciples." 

The  Twelve  as  a  whole,  and  Jesus'  "  mother  and  brethren," 
the  group  who  are  associated  with  them  in  the  Jerusalem  cali- 
phate, fare  no  better  in  Mark  than  Peter  and  other  individual 
Apostles.  Jesus'  kindred  appear  on  two  occasions  only,  in  both 
cases  in  alliance  with  his  opponents,  and  as  typical  examples  of 
Jewish  unbelief  (3,  21;  6,  4,  "  his  own  kin  ").  Jesus  disowns 
them  in  favor  of  those  who  "  do  the  will  of  God,"  taking  the 
disciples  to  be  his  spiritual  kin  (3,  34-35).  But  the  Twelve 
themselves  suffer  from  the  same  Jewish  Trcbpcocns.  They  too  are 
repeatedly  rebuked  for  being  "  without  understanding."  They 
share  in  the  "  hardening "  of  their  less  privileged  fellow- 
countrymen  (4,  13,  40;  6,  52;  7,  18;  8,  16-21;  9,  18-19,  28,  32; 
10,  13-14,  24,  26,  32;  14,  50),  so  that  Peter's  rebuke  for  "  mind- 
ing not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men  "  is  only  the 
culminating  instance  of  a  condemnation  that  rests  on  the  Jews 
in  general.  But  to  Mark's  doctrine  of  the  "  hardening " 
(TTcbpcoo-ts)  of  Israel  we  must  devote  fuller  discussion;  for  at  this 
point  we  again  find  ourselves  face  to  face  with  a  highly  signifi- 
cant connection  of  the  Gospel  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

F.  Markan  versus  Pauline  Doctrine  of  the 
Hardening  of  Israel 

The  most  distinctive  feature  of  Romans  is  the  Apostle's  great 
survey  of  human  history  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view  of  the 

*  In  Ev.  Petri  he  reappears  in  the  group  who  return  with  Peter  to  their  fishing 
in  GaUlee  after  the  crucifixion.  The  fragment  breaks  off  after  the  mention  of  his 
name. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  81 

Election  of  Israel,  a  theodicy  which  forms  the  second  part  of 
this  Epistle's  doctrinal  body  (Rom.  9-11).  It  brings  forward 
Paul's  well  known  theory  of  the  "  hardening  "  (Trwpcoo-is)  of 
the  elect  people,  perhaps  the  most  strained  of  any  of  his  dis- 
tinctive views. 

Paul  regards  the  callousness  of  Israel  to  the  gospel  message 
as  divinely  ordained  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  dissemina- 
tion of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  For  he  anticipates  that 
Israel  itself  (the  natural  olive-branches)  will  afterwards  through 
jealousy  be  provoked  to  reconsider  its  unbelief,  and  thus  be 
restored  again  to  the  native  trunk  whereon  the  Gentiles  (the 
wild  olive  branches)  had  meantime  been  grafted.  This  theodicy 
of  history  and  the  doctrine  of  election  is  based  by  Paul  on  a 
number  of  Scripture  passages,  including  a  secondary  form 
(Deut.  29,  3)  of  the  famous  Isaian  complaint  of  the  people  of 
deaf  ears  and  unseeing  eyes  (Isa.  6,  9-10;  29,  10,  etc.).  By 
modern  interpreters  it  is  generally  regarded  as  an  apologetic  in- 
tended to  parry  the  objection  of  heathen  opponents  that  Jesus' 
own  people  rejected  his  claim  to  be  their  predicted  Messiah. ^ 

So  far  as  it  goes  this  interpretation  is  correct.  None  appreci- 
ates better  than  Red.-Marc.  the  apologetic  value  of  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  the  "  hardening  of  Israel."  But  Paul  makes  no  such 
application.  These  famous  chapters  of  Romans  are  introduced, 
on  the  contrary,  by  the  most  touching  profession  of  undying 
love  and  loyalty  to 

my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  who  are  Israehtes;  whose  is  the  Adoption, 
and  the  Glory  (Shekinah),  and  the  Covenants,  and  the  Giving  of  the  Law, 
and  the  Worship,  and  the  Promises;  whose  are  the  Fathers,  and  of  whom  is 
Christ,  as  concerning  the  flesh. 

The  tone  of  this  contrasts  as  vividly  with  that  of  1  Thess.  2, 
15-16  and  Galatians  as  a  whole,  on  the  one  side,  as  with  that  of 
the  Markan  story  of  Jesus'  disowning  of  his  "  kinsmen  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh  "  on  the  other.  Paul,  the  great  peacemaker, 
the  true  Apostle  of  Love  of  the  New  Testament,  appears  in  a 
new  light  in  the  Epistles  which  follow  Galatians  and  First  and 
Second  Thessalonians.    In  Romans,  as  in  First  Corinthians,  he 

^  Urged  by  Celsus  in  the  second  century,  who  speaks  for  Jewish  predecessors. 
See  Origen,  Contra  Celsum,  ii.  75-79. 


82  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

emphasises  the  other  side  of  his  doctrine  of  freedom.  In  Rom. 
14,  1  ff,  he  interceded,  as  we  have  seen,  on  behalf  of  those  who 
in  Corinth  had  professed  to  be  imitators  "  of  Cephas,"  the 
needlessly  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians.  He  entreats  the  Ro- 
man leaders  not  to  exclude  the  "  weak  "  brother.  Previously, 
in  the  great  chapters  on  the  Election  (Rom.  9-11)  Paul  had 
made  the  highest  possible  use  of  the  obnoxious  claim  of  Jewish 
prerogative.  He  argues  almost  like  one  of  his  old-time  op- 
ponents. But  his  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  is  in  the  interest 
of  peace.  His  ideal  is  the  ultimate  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile  in 
the  new  creation,  the  ''  one  new  man  "  which  is  Christ  Jesus. 

The  historical  key  to  Paul's  peculiar  emphasis  upon  this 
central  doctrine  of  Jewish  particularism  and  his  large  interpre- 
tation of  it  in  specially  conciliatory  tone  in  just  this  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  special  requirement  of 
apologetic,  but  in  the  tone  of  conciliation  and  peace-making 
toward  those  of  "  Cephas  "  which  becomes  increasingly  promi- 
nent in  all  the  letters  after  Galatians,  beginning  with  First 
Corinthians.  It  is  clear  from  Rom.  15,  31  how  deeply  Paul  had 
at  heart  the  success  of  his  peace-making  mission  to  Jerusalem. 
On  the  other  hand  we  may  see  from  the  direct  appeal  in  Rom. 
14,  1  ff .  that  the  attitude  of  at  least  the  controlling  element  in 
the  church  at  Rome  toward  Jewish  "  distinctions  "  was  such 
that,  but  for  Paul's  intercession,  the  authorities  might  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  exclude  altogether  the  "  weak  "  brother  who  feared 
to  disregard  Moses.  From  these  considerations  we  must  form 
our  conception  of  tendencies  in  the  church  at  Rome  in  60  a.d., 
and  of  the  temper  of  the  dominant  party,  who  here,  as  in  Corinth, 
probably  considered  themselves  to  be  imitators  "  of  Paul  "  be- 
cause of  their  opposition  to  those  "  of  Cephas."  Events  which 
followed  in  the  next  two  decades  are  not  likely  to  have  dimin- 
ished the  "  Paulinism  "  of  the  Gentile  churches,  whether  in 
Greece  or  Italy.  From  First  Peter  it  would  appear  that  the 
subsequent  drawing  together  of  "  strong  "  and  "  weak  "  in  all 
quarters  was  a  compensating  outcome  of  the  world-wide  per- 
secutions "  for  the  name  "  of  Christian  under  Domitian. 

The  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  the  "  hardening  of  Israel  " 
(TTcopwo-is)  plays  a  very  conspicuous  part  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  83 

is  undeniable.  That  the  classic  proof-text  from  Isa.  6,  9-10 
should  be  borrowed  and  developed  by  all  dependent  evangelists 
(Acts  28,  26-27;  Matt.  13,  14-15;  John  12,  37-43)  is  far  from 
surprising.  But  there  are  two  notable  facts  concerning  the 
Markan  employment  apart  from  the  generally  recognized 
"  Paulinism  "  of  Mark  4,  11-12.  One  is  that  the  doctrine  of 
TTcbpcocrts  in  Mark  is  by  no  means  confined  to  this  one  passage, 
but  extends  throughout  the  Gospel,  forming  indeed  the  very 
core  and  kernel  of  the  evangelist's  peculiar  theory  so  effectively 
exhibited  in  Wrede's  epoch-making  work,  "  Das  Messiasgeheim- 
niss, ' '  of  the ' '  hiding  of  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom. ' '  The  other 
notable  point  is  that  the  Gospel  employs  this  theory  of  Trwpcoo-ts, 
not  as  Paul  does,  but  in  the  interest  of  apologetic  (not  to  say 
polemic)  against  Judaism  within,  or  without  the  Church.  If 
there  is  any  trace  of  Paul's  peace-making  climax,  his  loyal  hope 
and  faith  that  in  the  end  all  Israel  would  also  turn  again  and  be 
saved  (Rom.  11,  13-32),  it  appears  only  in  the  form  of  symbol- 
ism. In  the  present  writer's  commentary  ^  the  judgment  is 
expressed  that  the  episode  of  the  boy  possessed  of  the  dumb 
devil  (Mark  9,  14-29)  is  placed  where  it  is,  and  developed  as 
it  is,  by  Red.-Marc.  with  this  symbolic  application  in  view. 
This  opinion,  still  maintained,  would  support  the  view  that 
Mark  shares  the  optimism  of  Paul  regarding  Israel;  but  it  is  an 
interpretation  which  has  yet  to  find  general  acceptance. 

The  depiction  of  Jesus'  career  characteristic  of  Mark  (and 
subsequently  dominant,  though  undiscoverable  in  Paul)  is  that 
of  the  wonder-working  "  strong  Son  of  God,"  to  whom  yield 
not  only  demons  and  he  that  hath  the  power  of  death,  but  the 
very  elements  and  powers  of  earth  and  heaven.  But  this  rep- 
resentation involves  a  psychological  difficulty.  How  then  (it 
would  be  answered)  was  there  no  reaction  to  these  extraordinary 
phenomena  from  friend  or  foe  until  after  the  crucifixion  ?  How 
could  such  superhuman  pretensions  be  publicly  advanced,  and 
yet  the  question  of  Jesus'  personality  remain  in  abeyance  (as  it 
confessedly  did)  until  the  crisis  in  Jerusalem?  The  actual  em- 
ployment of  arguments  of  this  kind  by  Celsus  ^  in  shghtly 

1  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story,  ad  loc. 

2  Origen,  Contra  Celsum,  1.  ii,  passim. 


84  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL  ? 

varied  form  shows  that  in  the  earher  Jewish  polemic  it  had  not 
been  neglected.  It  is  met  in  Mark  by  a  constant  application 
of  the  "  wisdom  "  doctrine  frequently  employed  by  Paul  (1  Cor. 
2,  7-11;  Rom  16,  25,  etc.)  of  the  "  hiding  of  the  mystery  " 
from  all  but  the  elect.  A  form  of  the  Q  logion  to  this  effect 
(Matt.  11,  25  =  Luke  10,  21)  is  introduced  by  Red.-Marc.  in 
4,  11-12,  together  with  his  own  proof -text  from  Isa.  6,  9-10,  at 
a  point  where  it  flagrantly  interrupts  the  original  connection, 
transforming  Jesus'  answer  to  a  request  for  explanation  of  the 
parables  into  an  explanation  of  why  he  uses  parables.  They 
were  riddles,  or  dark  sayings  (so  Red.-Marc.  declares),  em- 
ployed in  order  to  hide  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  from  all 
save  the  elect !  Here,  then,  is  the  evangelist's  explanation  of 
the  lack  of  reaction  to  Jesus'  teaching :  Israel's  eyes  and  ears 
were  holden  that  they  should  not  understand.  A  Roman  Pau- 
linist  might  well  be  expected  to  make  some  such  application  of 
Paul's  two  doctrines  of  the  "  hiding  of  the  mystery  "  and  the 
''hardening  of  Israel";  but  what  shall  we  say  of  the  supposi- 
titious Jew  and  Oriental  who  thinks  of  the  mashal  as  a  rid- 
dling atviyixa,  the  illustration  as  a  dark  saying  ? 

A  similar  theory  of  intentional  repression  is  applied  in  Mark 
to  the  miracles.  Jesus  withdraws  from  publicity.  He  forbids 
the  healed,  even  the  parents  of  the  resuscitated  girl,  to  make 
the  marvel  known.  He  silences  the  cries  of  demons  "  be- 
cause they  knew  him."  When  at  last  his  secret  was  perforce 
"  openly  "  spoken  of  to  the  Twelve,  "  he  forbade  them  to  make 
him  known  "  (8,  27-32a).  The  vision  of  the  Transfiguration, 
especially,  with  its  unveiling  of  his  true  nature  and  mission, 
must  be  kept  a  secret  "  until  the  Son  of  Man  be  risen  from  the 
dead  "  (9,  9). 

All  this  is  not  "  pedagogic  reserve."  It  may  have  a  certain 
background  of  historic  truth  in  Jesus'  wholesome  moral  reaction 
from  the  career  of  a  miracle-mongering  7677s ;  but  the  phenom- 
enon is  more  literary  than  historical.  Its  real  explanation 
lies  in  the  habitual  practice  of  pseudepigraphic  and  apocalyptic 
hterature.  The  revelation  has  always  to  be  "  hidden  for  the 
time  to  come,"  because  otherwise  the  reader  will  say:  How  is 
it  that  all  this  marvel  transpired  so  late? 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  85 

The  "  wonder-loving  Mark  "  feels  the  pressure  of  the  oft- 
raised  objection,  and  meets  it  by  his  own  adaptation  (probably- 
resting  on  the  Second  Source  0  of  the  Isaian  doctrine  of  the 
deaf  and  blind  servant.  In  particular  he  weaves  together,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  a  typical  editorial  insertion  (Mark  4,  11-12), 
a  combination  of  Paul's  classic  theme  of  the  "  hiding  of  the 
mystery  "  with  the  principal  proof-text  from  Isa.  6,  9-10,  and 
in  addition  explains  the  incredible  blindness  and  dumbness  of 
unbelieving  Jews,  in  which  even  those  who  later  believe  are 
involved,  by  constant  reiteration  of  the  declaration  that  '^  their 
hearts  were  hardened."  This  may  perhaps  not  be  due  to  any 
direct  literary  influence  from  Romans,  but  the  locality  above 
all  others  in  which  we  should  most  naturally  look  for  such  an 
adaptation  of  the  theory  of  Trcbpojo-is  in  antijudaic  apologetic 
would  certainly  be  that  to  which  that  epistle  was  addressed. 

G.  Markan  Christology 

One  more  point  of  contact  between  Mark  and  Romans,  a 
feature  closely  connected  with  its  doctrine  of  Trwpcoo-ts,  or  the 
"  hiding  of  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom,"  deserves  considera- 
tion before  we  pass  to  other  features  which  connect  this  Gospel 
with  practices  and  institutions  otherwise  known  to  have  pre- 
vailed in  very  early  times  among  Christians  at  Rome.  We 
must  consider  the  pecuUar  Christology  of  Mark,  which  on  the 
heretical  side  led  Cerinthus  and  his  adoptionist  followers  to 
make  it  their  standard,  and  on  the  orthodox  led  independently 
in  the  regions  represented  respectively  by  Luke  and  Matthew 
to  the  prefixing  of  "  infancy  chapters  "  which  by  different 
methods  seek  an  accommodation  between  the  Hellenistic  idea 
of  virgin  birth  and  the  primitive  Jewish  of  direct  Davidic 
descent. 

Among  other  features  which,  under  the  conception  already 
voiced  of  conditions  at  Rome,  will  seem  quite  natural  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  will  be  the  Apostle's  reference  in  two 
passages  (Rom.  1,  4;  9,  5)  to  the  fact  that  "  as  concerning  the 
flesh  "  Jesus  himself  had  been  a  Jew.    In  the  former  passage 

1  Cf.  Matt.  11,  2-19;  12,  17-21  with  Luke  7,  18-35. 


86  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

(Rom.  1,  4)  Paul  even  endorses  the  belief  represented  in  the 
(conflicting)  genealogies  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  "  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh  "  Jesus  really  was  "  born  of  the  seed  of  David  " ; 
though  he  goes  on  to  point  out  that  his  "  appointment  in 
power  "  as  the  Son  of  God  was  only  "  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  In  this  opposition  between  "  a  Christ  according 
to  the  flesh  "  (2  Cor.  5,  16  i;  cf.  Mark  8,  33  to.  tcop  apdp6:Trc^v) 
and  a  Christ  "  appointed  "  by  the  resurrection  "  according  to 
the  Spirit  of  holiness  "  (Rom.  1,  4)  we  have  Paul's  epiphany 
doctrine,  which  in  doctrinal  viewpoint  corresponds  with  the 
transfiguration  story  of  the  Synoptists.  These  have,  of  course, 
no  real  incarnation  doctrine  such  as  Paul's  of  the  pre-existent 
Wisdom  (koyos)  of  God,  their  nearest  approach  being  the 
Baptism  story,  whose  doctrinal  content  is  the  equivalent  in 
terms  of  mystic  vision  of  Paul's  theological  statement  in  Col.  1, 
13,  19.  Neither  of  these  symbolic  elements  of  Mark  is  really 
assimilated  by  the  evangelist.  Baptism  and  Transfiguration 
alike  stand  apart  from  the  context  as  foreign  material  unex- 
plained. 

On  the  other  hand,  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  appointment 
(opl^eLu)  is  based  on  Psalm  110,  1.  This  appears  from  his 
frequent  use  of  the  phrase  "  at  the  right  hand  of  God  ";  in- 
deed, in  two  Pauline  passages  (1  Cor.  15,  25-28;  Eph.  1,  20-22) 
this  proof-text  is  combined  with  Psalm  8,  5-7.  Furthermore,  a 
Deutero-Pauline  epistle  probably  addressed  to  Rome  and 
slightly  earlier  than  Mark  (Hebrews)  develops  an  elaborate 
Christology  on  the  basis  of  these  same  two  proof-texts.  This 
Epistle,  after  first  (2,  5-9)  elaborating  Psalm  8,  5-7,  makes 
special  development  of  the  later  context  of  Psalm  110,  1  to 
teach  that  Christ  is  the  predicted  priest-king  "  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedek,"  since  his  dynasty,  like  Melchizedek's,  is  with- 
out a  genealogy  {ayeveaXoynTos) ,  "  without  father  or  mother, 
having  neither  beginning  nor  end  of  days."  This  is  generally 
admitted  to  represent  an  Alexandrian  type  of  development  of 

^  The  reference  in  this  passage  is  not  (as  sometimes  supposed)  to  contact  of 
Paul  with  Jesus  during  the  ministry,  a  contact  denied  by  Paul's  opponents  and 
never  claimed  by  him.  The  reference  (as  shown  by  the  phrase  /card  aapKa  here 
and  in  Rom.  1,  4)  is  to  the  expected  Jewish  Messiah  koto  to  tuv  &vOpuiruv. 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  87 

the  Pauline  Christology.  At  all  events  it  employs  the  same 
proof-texts  and  makes  the  same  contrast  between  "  a  Christ 
after  the  flesh  "  and  a  Christ  brought  into  the  presence  of  the 
angels  as  the  Son  of  God  (Heb.  1,  6).  This  clearly  involves  a 
complete  declaration  of  independence  of  the  Palestinian  or 
Jewish-Christian  Christology,  in  which  the  title  "  Son  of 
David  "  long  continued  to  be  taken  in  the  most  literal  sense. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  we  find  (as  in  Paul)  a 
bare  trace  or  two  (10,  48-49;  11,  10)  of  the  early  (perhaps 
authentic)  belief  in  Jesus'  Davidic  descent.  But  so  little  value 
attaches  to  it  that  the  reader  remains  wholly  in  the  dark  as  to 
whether  Jesus  is,  or  is  not,  actually  descended  from  David. 
Genealogy  there  is  none.  On  the  contrary,  the  only  way  in 
which  the  matter  is  brought  up  at  all  is  in  an  awkwardly  ap- 
pended ^  supplement  (12,  35-37)  to  the  three  party  questions 
raised  and  debated  in  the  temple.  After  the  colophon  "  And 
no  man  after  that  durst  ask  him  any  question,"  Jesus  is  repre- 
sented as  himself  raising  the  question  of  his  own  claims  to 
Messiahship,  and  settling  it  (by  implication)  on  the  basis  of 
Psalm  110,  1.2  He  is  to  be  manifested  as  Son  of  God  by  exalta- 
tion to  the  right  hand  of  power !  If  he  is  descended  from  David, 
this  fact  has  no  value  or  bearing  on  the  case.  That  a  doctrine 
of  this  kind  should  be  maintained  in  that  seat  of  western  and 
Gentile  Christianity  which  had  received  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  (and  quite  recently  in  all  probability  Hebrews  as  well) 
need  not  surprise  us.  That  it  should  be  current  and  acceptable 
in  the  Aramaic-speaking  circles  of  the  Eastern  church  would 
pass  comprehension. 

The  Christology  of  Mark  is  really  composite.  That  of  the 
evangelist  himself  is  a  massive  supernaturalism  somewhat 
crudely  adjusted  to  two  bases  of  older  Jewish  vision  story  — 
the  baptism  and  transfiguration.  The  work  is  superscribed 
"  Beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God."  It 
ends  its  account  of  the  ministry  with  the  scene  of  the  Roman 
centurion  standing  before  the  cross,  awe-struck  at  the  portents 

'  This  is  made  only  the  more  conspicuous  by  Matthew's  corrective  transposi- 
tion. 

2  Some  texts,  however,  omit  "  the  Son  of  God." 


88  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

attending  the  tragedy,  and  exclaiming,  "  Truly  this  man  was  a 
son  of  God."  This  type  of  "  strong  "  Christology  (if  we  may 
use  this  term)  characterizes  the  Gospel  throughout,  and  passes 
on  from  it  to  its  satellites,  though  not  without  attempted  ad- 
justment to  the  more  consistently  Jewish  Christology  of  the 
Second  Source.  In  Mark  the  figure  of  the  superhuman  hero, 
the  demi-god,  more  Gentile  than  Jewish,  is  superimposed 
throughout  the  Gospel  upon  that  of  the  xats  or  vlds  deov  of  the 
baptism  (which  the  temptation  story  of  Q  interprets  in  the 
sense  of  Jewish  wisdom),  and  the  Son  of  Man  Christology  of 
the  transfiguration.  The  former  Christology  is  the  basis  of 
Mark  1,  9-11.  It  verges  as  closely  upon  adoptionism  as  the 
latter,  presupposed  in  9,  2-10,  verges  on  docetism.  The 
Gentile  capstone  superimposed  upon  these  two  Jewish  pillars 
is,  as  already  stated,  the  massive  supernaturalism  of  the  evan- 
gelist's own  belief.  The  true  Markan  Christ  is  the  superhuman 
wonder-worker,  who  silences  the  claims  of  the  Law  by  an  act  of 
supernatural  power  (2,  6-10;  28),  and  imposes  obedience  on 
wind  and  sea  (4,  41)  as  well  as  on  demonic  powers  (5,  6-7). 
This  "  strong  "  Christology,  as  we  have  termed  it,  is  of  course 
very  far  from  the  "  high  Christology  "  of  Paul.  But  it  cer- 
tainly does  not  differ  in  the  direction  of  greater  sympathy  or 
appreciation  for  Jewish  thought.  The  evangelist  embodies  the 
two  vision  scenes  of  the  baptism  and  transfiguration;  but  he 
does  not  show  toward  them  the  appreciation  or  understand- 
ing we  should  expect  from  one  of  Jewish  birth  or  training.  His 
readers  must  interpret  them  for  themselves.  The  evangelist 
no  more  explains  these  scenes  than  he  explains  the  title  Son  of 
Man,  which  he  boldly  adopts,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  suffering 
Servant,  which  he  presupposes  in  10,  45  and  14,  24. 

When  we  look  from  this  composite,  ill-digested  Christology 
of  Mark  to  the  improvements  attempted  by  the  later  Synoptists, 
it  is  easy  to  see  the  true  nature  of  their  prefixed  infancy  chapters. 
Independently  Matthew  and  Luke  endeavor  to  accommodate 
the  "  strong  "  "  Son  of  God  "  doctrine  of  Mark  to  the  older 
Jewish  conception  of  the  "  Son  of  David."  The  almost  out  and 
out  adoptionism  of  the  opening  scene  of  Mark  1,  9-11,  in  which, 
as  Wellhausen  puts  it,  "  Jesus  goes  down  into  the  water  a 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  89 

simple  mechanic  of  Nazareth;  he  comes  up  out  of  it  the  chosen 
Son  of  God,"  could  not  permanently  be  tolerated.  The  flux  of 
which  each  of  the  later  Synoptists  independently  avails  himself, 
in  order  to  fuse  into  a  workable  amalgam  this  Markan  adop- 
tionism  and  the  Jewish  theocratic  conception  of  the  Son  of 
David  reflected  in  the  genealogies  is  the  story  of  Virgin  Birth. 
True,  it  cannot  really  be  harmonized  with  the  genealogies;  but 
it  is  not  in  the  least  un-Jewish.  On  the  contrary,  the  epithet 
deoyovos  applied  to  Isaac  by  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  Paul's  refer- 
ences to  Isaac's  birth  through  the  operation  of  a  divine  word  of 
promise  (Rom.  4,  17-22;  9,  9),  show  parthenogenesis  in  its 
proper  interpretation  to  be  entirely  congenial  to  Judaism.  At 
all  events  this  doctrine  serves  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  the 
ay€P€a\6y7]Tos  Christology  of  Mark,  almost  defiantly  independ- 
ent of  what  the  scribes  say  as  to  the  Davidic  descent  of  "  the 
Christ  "  (Mark  12,  37-39),  and  the  primitive  Palestinian  doc- 
trine of  human  parentage.  For  we  have  already  observed  that 
Paul  acknowledges  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus  as  matter  of 
fact  (Rom.  1,  4;  9,  5;  Gal.  4,  4),  even  while  he  bases  his  own 
doctrine  on  the  exaltation  to  "  the  right  hand  of  God  "  (1,  4; 
8,  34).i 

Some  of  the  steps  by  which  we  have  endeavored  to  trace  the 
complicated  development  of  primitive  Christology  through 
action  and  reaction  between  Jewish  and  Hellenistic  concep- 
tions of  various  kinds  may  fail  to  win  the  reader's  assent.  Of 
one  thing,  however,  we  are  persuaded.  No  competent  student 
who  surveys  on  the  one  side  the  "  strong  "  Christology  of 
Mark,  and  on  the  other  the  compromises  and  adjustments  of 
the  later  Synoptists  can  say  that  the  better  title  to  emanate 
from  Palestinian  soil  lies  with  the  earlier.  On  the  contrary, 
Mark  reflects  the  same  contrast  as  Romans  and  Hebrews  be- 
tween the  Christ  "  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  " 
and  the  Christ  who  is  "  manifested  "  as  the  Son  of  God  by 
exaltation  to  the  "  right  hand,"  in  Deutero-Pauline,  Alexan- 

1  For  the  "  manifestation  "  (k-Ki<t>apei.a)  to  the  multitude  at  the  baptism,  the 
fourth  evangelist  very  naturally  substitutes  a  "  manifestation  of  his  glory  " 
(John  2,  11)  to  the  disciples  at  Cana  by  a  miracle  corresponding  to  that  character- 
izing the  manifestation  ("  epiphany  ")  of  Dionysus  on  Jan.  5-6.  See  "  After  Six 
Days,"  Bacon,  Harvard  Theological  Review,  VIII  (Jan.,  1915),  pp.  94-121. 


90  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

drian  Christology,  "  a  high  priest  forever,  without  father,  with- 
out mother,  without  a  genealogy."  So  far  from  showing  ap- 
preciation of,  or  consideration  for,  the  native  Jewish  type  of 
Christology,  it  eliminates  entirely  the  genealogies,  and  leaves 
the  reader  uncertain  whether  the  acclamation  of  the  blind 
beggar  at  Jericho  and  the  crowd  at  Jerusalem  have,  or  have  not, 
any  basis  in  fact.  Its  only  reference  to  the  subject  is  the  sup- 
plementary question  appended  to  the  series  of  debates  between 
Jesus  and  his  Jewish  opponents  in  the  temple,  the  scornful: 

How  say  the  scribes  that  the  Christ  is  the  son  of  David  ?  David  himself 
said  in  the  Holy  Spirit: 

The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 

Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand 

Till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool. 

H.   Roman  Ritual  as  affecting  Mark 

The  most  specifically  Roman  trait  in  Mark  is  found  in  the 
sphere  of  early  ritual  and  observance,  matters  which  in  the 
East  especially  are  clung  to  with  intense  devotion.  The 
principal  feature  of  this  kind  belongs,  like  Mark's  ultra- 
Pauline  apologetic  and  Christology,  to  a  stratum  of  the  Gospel 
which  is  clearly  secondary.  It  is  all  the  more  conspicuous  be- 
cause in  this  case  undeniably  in  conflict  with  the  basic  story. 

We  have,  unfortunately,  for  the  trait  in  question  no  designa- 
tion simpler  than  "Anti-quartodecimanism."  The  recognition 
of  its  specifically  Roman  (or  at  all  events  western)  charac- 
ter depends  on  familiarity  with  the  early  history  of  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Church's  one  great  annual  festival,  the  Easter 
feast  of  Redemption,  which  combined  characteristics  of  the 
Jewish  feast  of  national  redemption  (Passover)  with  the  much 
more  widely-observed  Oriental  feast  of  resurrection  celebrated 
in  conamemoration  of  the  triumph  over  death  of  various 
redeemer-gods,  such  as  Attis,  Adonis,  and  Osiris.  The  celebra- 
tion took  place  among  the  churches  of  Cappadocia,  and  in  Ter- 
tulHan's  time  at  Rome  itself,  annually,  on  the  25th  of  March, 
the  vernal  equinox  of  the  Julian  calendar.  It  can  be  traced,  of 
course,  much  further  back  than  the  celebration  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  on  December  25th  (Julian  winter  solstice,  the  dies  invicti 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  91 

solis);  in  fact  it  goes  back  beyond  question  to  the  Apostles 
themselves.  This  is  not  merely  the  claim  of  Poly  carp  in  154, 
it  is  easily  demonstrable  from  Paul's  references  to  "  keeping  the 
feast  "  of  "  Christ,  our  passover,"  and  his  employment  of  the 
passover  imagery  of  the  "  new  leaven,"  and  the  seed-corn 
which  after  perishing  in  the  earth  is  divinely  restored.  It  ap- 
pears also  from  the  references  to  Christ  as  the  first-fruits 
(ctTrapxi?)  of  the  buried  saints  (1  Cor.  5,  7-8;   15,  20,  35-37), 

Poly  carp,  as  representative  of  the  churches  of  Asia  in  this 
observance  at  Rome  in  154,  claimed  to  have  it  by  direct  and 
unbroken  succession  from  "  the  Apostles  and  disciples  of  the 
Lord,"  and  there  is  every  reason  to  admit  this  claim  since  Paul 
himself,  unless  all  implications  are  deceptive,  when  he  wrote 
from  Ephesus  to  the  Corinthians  on  the  questions  involved  in 
the  meaning  of  the  Easter  observances,  was  himself  at  the  time 
engaging  in  them  with  the  Ephesian  church.  The  present 
writer  has  expressed  the  belief  ^  that  the  "  Scripture  "  on  the 
ground  of  which  Paul  (in  common  with  all  the  early  preachers 
of  the  resurrection,  1  Cor.  15,  11)  dated  the  mysterious  unseen 
act  of  divine  power  which  broke  the  gates  and  bars  of  Sheol  as 
having  taken  place  "  on  the  third  day,"  is  the  ancient  law  of 
First-fruits  in  the  sacred  calendar  of  Lev.  23,  9-14.  The  re- 
quirement which  determines  Pentecost,  and  as  a  consequence 
the  whole  calendar,  is  that  of  Lev.  23,  15: 

Ye  shall  count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  sabbath  (of  Passover), 
from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering,  seven  complete 
sabbaths  unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  sabbath,  fifty  days.^ 

According  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Sadducees,^  which  may 
quite  possibly  represent  the  older  practice,  this  makes  First- 
fruits  (and  Pentecost)  always  fall  on  a  Sunday,  or  Lord's 
day  (KvpcaKT)  rinepa).    First-fruits  in  the  year  of  the  crucifixion 

1  "  The  Resurrection  in  Primitive  Tradition  and  Observance,"  American  Jour- 
nal of  Theology,  XV,  3  (July,  1911). 

2  On  this  use  of  "  the  third  day  "  (i.e.,  from  the  beginning  of  the  feast)  see  John 
Lightfoot  on  Matt.  12,  1.  He  interprets  the  curious  0  reading  SevrepoTrpurii)  of 
Luke  6,  1  as  "first  sabbath  after  the  second  day  of  Passover."  The  numbering 
of  days  in  the  period  Passover  —  Pentecost  must  be  interpreted  in  view  of  the 
calendar  system. 

3  Menahoth  65  a,  b. 


92  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

(which  took  place  on  a  Friday)  was  "  on  the  third  day,"  if  the 
Friday  in  question  was  (as  all  the  Asiatic  churches  insistently 
maintained)  the  14th  of  Nisan,  the  full-moon  marked  by  the 
killing  of  the  Passover  lamb.  It  was  invariably  the  16th  Nisan; 
in  the  year  of  the  crucifixion  it  fell  on  a  Sunday.  To  Paul, 
therefore,  as  to  the  ancient  Church  generally  (with  the  single 
exception  of  Mark),  the  resurrection  when  Christ  "  became  the 
'  first-fruits  '  of  them  that  slept  "  was  "  on  the  third  day." 
Even  Mark  presupposes  exactly  the  same  interval  between 
Jesus'  death  and  resurrection,  though  for  some  peculiar  reason 
he  persistently  employs  the  phrase  "  after  three  days."  To 
this  we  must  return  presently. 

Whether  the  particular  "  Scripture  "  referred  to  by  Paul  as 
implying  that  God  had  burst  the  Lord's  prison  house  ''  on  the 
third  day  "  be,  as  we  have  surmised,  Lev.  23,  9-14,  or  some 
other,  ^  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  ancient  "  quartodeciman  " 
practice  of  the  Oriental  churches,  which  continued  in  a  Christian 
significance  the  ancient  Jewish  feast  of  Redemption,  celebrated 
annually  on  the  14th  of  the  first  month  of  the  year  (vernal 
equinox  according  to  empirical  calculation),  has  convincing  sup- 
port in  the  earliest  and  most  authentic  documents  of  the  New 
Testament.  Probably  this  celebration  of  "  the  Lord's  Pass- 
over," and  of  "  the  third  day,"  was  accompanied,  at  least  in  the 
regions  nearer  to  the  Palestinian  home-land,  by  a  corresponding 
emphasis  on  "  the  fiftieth  day,"  Pentecost  (Acts  2,  Iff.;  20, 
16).  At  all  events,  the  "  quartodeciman  "  observance  of  the 
annual  Easter  feast,  characteristic  in  various  forms  and  modi- 
fications of  the  Eastern  churches  where  Jewish  practices  were 
still  strong,  has  convincing  attestation  both  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

Against  this  stands  the  practice  of  Rome,  traceable  (thanks 
to  the  later  peacemaking  intervention  of  Irenaeus  on  behalf  of 
his  Asiatic  friends)  back  to  the  time  when  Polycarp  at  Rome 
had  resisted  the  friendly  effort  of  Anicetus  to  induce  him  to 
swerve  from  the  method  of  observance  which  he  had  received 
"  from  the  Apostles."  ^    Anicetus  and  the  Romans  were  ac- 

1  Hos.  6,  2  is  not  employed  by  the  early  writers  in  this  application. 

2  The  Vita  Polycarpi  credibly  relates  that  Polycarp  had  been  brought  to 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  93 

customed  (we  know  not  on  what  authority  nor  from  how  far 
back)  to  subordinate  the  annual  commemoration  to  the  weekly 
as  respects  breaking  of  the  fast.  They  doubtless  regarded  the 
keeping  the  feast  of  Nisan  14  as  a  Judaizing  practice  (as  we 
know  to  have  been  the  case  at  a  later  time),  insisting  that  "  the 
mystery  of  the  Lord's  death  "  must  be  observed  on  no  other 
than  the  first  day  of  the  week;  whereas  quartodeciman  practice 
of  course  made  observance  on  other  days,  including  even  fast- 
days,  unavoidable.  They  had  no  objection,  however,  to  height- 
ening and  emphasizing  the  normal  significance  of  that  particular 
"  Lord's  day  "  which  happened  to  fall  next  after  the  verna 
equinox,^  a  form  of  compromise  which  was  ultimately  adopted 
and  forms  the  present  determination  of  Good  Friday  and 
Easter  Sunday.  Dislike  of  Jewish  practices,  and  especially  of 
any  coincidence  in  celebration  of  a  church  feast  with  the  festival 
of  the  "  murderers  of  the  Lord,"  was  a  prominent,  if  not  a  domi- 
nant, factor  in  Western  rejection  of  the  Eastern  calendar.  In 
Irenaeus'  time,  it  threatened  to  disrupt  Christendom  because 
of  the  intolerant  threat  of  Victor  of  Rome  to  disfellowship  the 
Asiatic  churches  which  should  persist  in  their  refusal  to  conform. 
Both  sides  of  course  insisted  that  their  opponents  "  made  the 
Gospels  disagree,"  and  had  methods  of  their  own  for  bringing 
them  into  alleged  harmony.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  modern  study 
shows  them  hopelessly  in  conflict.  The  fourth  (or  Ephesian) 
Gospel  is  (as  we  should  expect)  quartodeciman.  The  parting 
supper  of  Jesus  with  the  Twelve  in  John  13,  1-30  is  not  "  the 
Passover  " ;  this  feast  has  still  to  be  prepared  for  the  succeeding 
night  (John  13,  29;  18,  28).  The  Friday  of  the  crucifixion  is 
the  "  Preparation,"  not  of  the  regular  weekly  sabbath  only, 
but  of  Passover  Sabbath;  for,  as  the  evangehst  remarks,  "  the 
day  of  that  sabbath  was  a  high  day  "  (1^,  31).    Hence  Jesus' 

Smyrna  in  his  early  youth  as  a  slave  from  "  the  East "  (i.e.,  Syria).  Since  his  birth 
was  ca.  79,  he  may  well  have  had  contact  with  "  the  elders  "  in  Jerusalem,  in- 
cluding "  the  Elder  John  "  whom  Irenaeus  confuses  with  the  Apostle. 

1  In  TertuUian's  time  "Easter  "  was  celebrated  at  Rome,  as  in  Cappadocia,  an- 
nually on  March  25th.  At  Alexandria  it  had  been  celebrated  on  April  7th,  but  this 
was  changed  to  the  Sunday  after  the  first  full  moon  after  the  vernal  equinox,  and 
this  method  subsequently  became  general  in  Palestine,  Egypt,  and  throughout  the 
West,  while  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  and  Asia  Minor  clung  to  the  Ephesian  ob- 
servance. 


94  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

death  coincides  to  the  hour  with  the  kilhng  of  the  passover 
lamb,  just  as  his  anointing  in  Bethany  is  made  by  a  change  of 
date  from  Mark  14, 1  to  coincide  with  the  date  ^  fixed  in  the  Law 
(Exod.  12,  3-6)  for  the  consecration  of  the  victim  (John  12,  1). 
Christ  thus  appears,  in  Paul's  language,  "  our  passover  that  is 
sacrificed  for  us."  He  suffers  on  the  14th,  the  Preparation 
(Friday),  the  eve  of  the  great  day  of  the  feast  (first  of  Un- 
leavened Bread),  and  "  on  the  third  day,"  Sunday,  "  the  day 
after  the  sabbath,"  the  "  high  sabbath  "  of  Passover,  the  16th 
of  Nisan,  or  "  First-fruits,"  he  comes  forth  from  the  grave.^ 

This  dating  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  only  in  harmony  with 
First  Corinthians  and  the  ancient  practice  attested  by  Polycarp, 
it  is  also  required  by  the  underlying  data  of  Mark  itself  and  its 
two  later  satellites.  Fundamentally  the  Synoptic  story  of  the 
Passion  required  the  same  dating  as  the  Johannine.  The  haste 
of  the  authorities  to  put  Jesus  out  of  the  way  before  the  gather- 
ing of  the  multitude  "  at  the  feast  "  is  intended  to  avoid  the 
tumult  which  might  occur  from  a  crowd  likely  to  attempt  the 
rescue  of  a  popular  prisoner.  The  seizure  was  not  so  flagrantly 
mismanaged  as  to  take  place  on  the  very  night  of  the  great 
national  festival.  It  was  effected  "  before  the  Passover."  Jesus 
was  safely  (and  secretly)  conveyed  into  the  hands  of  Pilate  be- 
fore the  multitude  from  Galilee  had  time  to  act.  The  supper 
of  Mark  14,  17-26,  which  has  none  save  the  usual  elements 
of  the  daily  meal,  leavened  bread  (apros)  and  wine,  not  the 
unleavened  cakes  (massoth),  the  sauce  (haroseth),  and  the 
roasted  flesh  of  the  Passover,  corresponds  to  that  preparatory 
to  sacred  days,  sabbaths  and  feast-days  alike,  when  the  head 
of  the  household  distributed  bread  and  wine  with  a  brief  ritual 
of  blessing  and  thanksgiving  known  as  the  Kiddush,  which  pre- 
cedes the  evening  meal.  Mark's  description  of  this  parting 
meal,  has  in  short,  nothing  save  the  "  hymn  "   (verse  26)  to 

^  Epiphanius  (Haer.  i.  3)  makes  the  motive  unmistakable:  "We  take  the  sheep 
from  the  tenth  day,  recognizing  the  name  of  Jesus  on  account  of  the  iota."  The 
name  'Irjaovs  begin  with  the  letter  whose  numerical  value  was  10. 

^  On  the  whole  question  of  early  Christian  observance  of  the  "  Feast  of  Weeks  " 
with  reference  to  the  calculation  of  the  day  of  resurrection  and  Lordship  (KvpiaKfi 
fiiJLepa)  see  my  article,  "  The  Resurrection  in  Primitive  Tradition  and  Observance," 
in  American  Journal  of  Theology,  XV,  3  (July,  1911). 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  95 

make  it  really  correspond  to  the  elaborate  ritual  of  Passover, 
with  its  series  of  prescribed  cups,  and  its  prohibition  of  egress 
from  the  house  until  the  morning.  The  hymn  itself  needs  no 
identification  with  the  Great  Hallel  to  account  for  its  citation. 
Christian  assemblies  too  had  their  "  hymns  "  for  such  occasions, 
which  would  surely  appear  in  a  description  designed,  like 
Mark's,  to  account  for  and  justify  prevailing  usage.  Even  the 
datings  beginning  the  paragraph  on  the  preparation  (Mark  14, 
12)  are  so  sadly  confused  that  the  preparation  (which  included 
purging  the  house  of  leaven,  a  ceremony  of  the  day  preceding 
Passover  night)  appears  to  take  place  "  on  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread."  In  short  the  circumstances  and  events  nar- 
rated imply,  even  in  Mark,  that  the  last  supper  was  not  the 
Passover,  but  the  meal  marked  by  the  ceremony  of  Kiddush 
which  normally  fell  on  the  night  before.  The  evangelist,  who 
introduces  the  inconsistent  datings  of  14, 1  and  12  and  the  para- 
graph on  "  making  ready  the  Passover  "  in  the  upper  room 
(14, 12-16),  is  responsible  for  identifying  the  meal  with  the  Pass- 
over ;  and  his  motive  becomes  apparent  in  the  turn  given  to  the 
Q  logion  of  Luke  22,  28-30  =  Matt.  19,  28.  The  logion  has 
reference  to  a  "  covenanted  "  (Start^T/MO  tryst  at  the  heavenly 
banquet-table,  a  redemption  feast  which  Jesus  promises  to 
share  "  in  the  kingdom  of  God  "  with  those  who  have  shared 
his  "  trials  "  here.  Instead  of  this,  Mark  14,  25  brings  into 
special  prominence  the  idea  that  the  Jewish  feast  has  no  more 
occasion  for  observance,  seeing  it  is  from  this  time  on  "  ful- 
filled in  the  kingdom  of  God." 

It  should  not  be  necessary  here  to  repeat  the  well  known  in- 
dications that  the  datings  of  the  Passion  story  in  Mark  are 
altered  from  the  original,  and  that  this  original  would  require 
the  same  "  quartodeciman  "  datings  as  those  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Neither  should  it  be  necessary  to  repeat  the  reminders 
given  in  "  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story  "  that  we  have  no  other 
explanation  of  the  systematic  marking  of  each  quarter  (or 
''  watch  ")  of  day  and  night  for  the  story  of  Mark  14-16  than 
ritual  observance  for  the  two  periods  of  commemoration  in  the 
early  Church,  "  the  night  in  which  (Jesus)  was  betrayed," 
marked  by  a  vigil  corresponding  to  the  vigil  of  Passover,  with 


96  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

the  following  day  of  fast  (Good  Friday),  and  the  Easter  morn- 
ing. In  Mark  14,  17,  72;  15,  1,  33,  42;  16,  2  the  periods  which 
by  the  Roman  Hermas  are  termed  "  stations  "  ^  are  marked  off 
with  the  regularity  and  explicitness  of  a  rubric.  The  evangelist 
could  hardly  say  in  plainer  language  to  his  reader :  As  Peter  at 
midnight  failed  to  "  watch"  at  Jesus'  entreaty  (14,  37-41),  so 
yield  not  thou  to  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  but  watch  and  pray. 
As  Peter  at  cock-crowing  denied  his  Lord,  deny  thou  not;  re- 
member his  trial  at  dawn  before  Pilate,  his  crucifixion  at  "  the 
third  hour,"  his  parting  cry  "  at  the  ninth  hour,"  his  burial 
"  when  even  was  come."  Remember  also  the  tomb  found 
empty  "  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  when  the  sun  was  risen." 
The  datings  of  Mark  cover  systematically  and  perfectly  Rome's 
(anti-quartodeciman)  observance  of  the  sacred  season  of  the 
Passion,  reflecting  every  detail  so  far  as  we  have  the  means  of 
tracing  it.  But  they  do  not  in  their  present  form  correspond 
with  the  immemorial  practice  of  the  East,  nor  with  the  implica- 
tions of  Paul's  Epistles,  nor  with  the  clear  statements  of  the 
Ephesian  Gospel.  They  even  fail  to  correspond  with  the  re- 
quirements of  the  narrative  as  we  should  infer  them  from  the 
substance  of  Mark's  own  account. 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  one  special  peculiarity  of 
the  phraseology,  wherein  Mark  stands  in  curious  contradiction 
even  to  the  later  Synoptists,  who  elsewhere  follow  his  lead.  It 
is  the  systematic  employment  of  the  phrase  "  after  three  days  " 
for  the  interval  between  Good  Friday  night  and  Easter  Sunday 
morning.  In  Matthew  and  Luke  this  is  always  changed  to  "  the 
third  day  "  save  the  single  passage  Matt.  27,  63  where  Red.- 
Matt.  has  overlooked  his  usual  correction.  How  perplexing 
the  Markan  expression  was  to  early  writers  may  be  seen  in  the 
attempt  of  Syriac  Didascalia  to  make  out  "  three  days  "  by 
counting  the  darkness  of  the  crucifixion  day  as  a  night !  ^  Cer- 
tainly when  we  consider  the  very  early  observance  of  Friday 
as  a  fast  (Mark  2,  20,  Didache,  8,  1)  and  the  primeval  observ- 

^  Sim.  V.  1.  arariwp. 

*  Syr.  Didasc.  21.  A  trace  of  the  same  may  be  seen  in  Ev.  Petri  5,  18.  For 
fuller  discussion  and  references  see  the  article  above  referred  to  in  American  Jour- 
nal of  Theology,  XV,  3  (July,  1911). 


INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  97 

ance  of ''  the  Lord's  day  "  (Rev.  1, 10)  as  that  of  the  breaking  of 
the  bonds  of  death,  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  Paul's  "  the 
third  day  "  (1  Cor,  15,  4)  represents  the  authentic  and  original 
phrase.  How,  then,  account  for  the  singularity  of  Mark?  — 
All  the  other  features  of  his  Passion  story  find  explanation,  so 
far  as  datings  are  concerned,  in  the  actual  practice  of  Roman 
ritual.  We  cannot  be  sure  that  the  expression  "  after  three 
days  "  has  a  similar  origin,  for  we  cannot  certainly  say  that  the 
fast  by  which  the  Easter  festival  was  always  preceded,  varying 
from  forty  hours  to  forty  days  in  its  present  ultimate  form,  was 
a  fast  of  "three  days"  in  the  Roman  church  at  the  time  when 
this  evangelist  wrote.  We  do  know,  however,  that  the  vernal 
celebration  of  the  fast  and  feast  of  resurrection  were  early  prev- 
alent at  Rome,  where  the  official  establishment  of  the  festival 
of  the  Megalesia  in  204  b.c.  was  followed  by  introduction  of 
the  rites  of  the  Phrygian  Attis  on  March  15,  22,  24,  25,  and  26. 
In  this  ritual  the  period  of  mourning,  fasting,  and  vigil  between 
the  death  of  the  divinity  culminated  in  the  three  days,  March 
24  ("  Sanguen  "),  25  {"  Hilaria  "),  and  26. ^  The  resurrection 
festival  of  his  greatest  rival  at  Rome,  Osiris,  was  of  a  like  period. 
Early  Christian  observance  of  the  paschal  fast  varied  (as  we  are 
explicitly  informed)  in  regard  to  its  duration.  As  the  story 
itself  shows  that  in  Mark  the  period  really  meant  is  the  same 
(approximately)  forty-hour  period  contemplated  by  all  the  evan- 
gelists, what  needs  to  be  explained  is  only  the  anomaly  of  an 
inexact  expression.  It  is  at  least  conceivable  that  the  expression 
takes  its  rise  from  a  ritual  practice  affected  (like  so  many  others) 
by  the  custom  of  pre-Christian  times,  the  custom  of  a  three- 
days'  observance  at  vernal  equinox. 

The  evidence  for  a  Roman  provenance  for  Mark  derivable 
from  indications  of  Roman  (or  Western)  ritual  observance 
forms  a  chapter  by  itself  in  which  Mark's  peculiar  fagon  de 
parler  in  speaking  of  the  interval  between  the  crucifixion  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus  is  only  one  detail.     As  regards  this  the 

1  Men,  originally  a  lunar  divinity,  is  later  combined  by  theocrasy  with  Attis,  a 
vegetation  deity.  We  may  perhaps  conjecture  that  the  days  of  mourning  origi- 
nally coincided  with  the  period  at  (astronomic)  new  moon  when  the  luminary  is 
invisible  for  (approximately)  three  days. 


9^  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

explanation  here  offered  is  only  one  of  several  possibilities  which, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  points  to  Rome  as  the  most  probable  place  of 
origin.  What  is  really  required  for  valid  decision  is  a  detailed 
and  exact  comparison  between  all  the  pecuUarities  of  the 
Markan  account  of  the  Passion  and  resurrection,  especially 
those  which  have  reference  to  the  fixing  of  days  and  hours,  with 
the  known  peculiarities  of  early  Roman  observance. 


IV.    CONCLUSION 

Our  affirmative  answer  to  the  question,  Is  Mark  a  Roman  Gos- 
pel ?  leaves  it  almost  needless  to  put  the  further  query,  If  it  is, 
what  of  it  ?  The  process  by  which  we  have  sought  to  confirm  on 
scientific  grounds  this  ancient  belief  of  the  Church  opens  up 
vistas  of  light  across  the  dark  and  baffling  period  where  the  nar- 
rative of  Acts  ceases,  the  critical  historian  loses  the  guidance  of 
the  great  Pauline  Epistles,  and  we  are  obliged  to  find  the  path 
for  ourselves  between  the  apostolic  and  the  post-apostolic  age. 
Certainly  the  pre-eminent  phenomenon  of  the  period  for  infant 
Christianity  is  the  transition  of  the  Church  from  the  type  of 
faith  and  order  represented  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  that  of 
the  Synoptic  Writings.  The  former  is  a  Pauline  development 
displaying  scarcely  a  traceable  influence  from  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  in  precept  or  mighty  work.  Of  these  the  record  might 
almost  as  well  be  non-existent  so  far  as  the  faith  and  order  at- 
tested by  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  concerned.  In  the  generation 
following,  contrariwise,  almost  everything  in  the  faith  and  order 
of  the  churches  is  based  upon  Petrine  story. 

Of  the  three  great  centres  of  influence  during  this  period,  Jeru- 
salem, Ephesus,  and  Rome,  that  of  Jerusalem  is  at  first  su- 
preme. The  martyrdom  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  in  44  a.d., 
of  his  namesake  the  Lord's  brother,  head  of  the  caliphate 
at  Jerusalem,  and  the  martyrdom  of  John  the  other  son  of 
Zebedee,  which  we  may  probably  date  coincidently  with  that 
of  the  other  "  pillar,"  James,  in  62  a.d.,i  could  only  strengthen 
this  influence  as  a  "  red  "  martyrdom  as  well  as  "  white."  The 
destruction  of  the  temple,  and  (in  large  part)  of  the  city  also, 
did  not  prevent  the  reassembling  of  the  scattered  church  and 
its  reorganization  under  leadership  of  other  members  of  the 
family  of  Jesus,  to  suffer  new  persecution  from  the  suspicious 
Domitian.  When  our  third  evangeUst  writes,  and  even  down 
to  the  time  of  Papias  and  Hegesippus,  Jerusalem  is  still  revered 
as  the  seat  of  apostolic  tradition,  the  bulwark  of  historic  ortho- 

1  On  this  disputed  point  see  E.  Schwartz,  Tod  der  Sohne  Zebedaei  (1904),  Berlin, 
and  Bacon,  the  chapter  "  The  Martyr  Apostles  "  in  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research 

and  Debate  (1910). 

99 


100  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

doxy  against  Gnostic  error,  a  "  pure  virgin  "  untainted  by  any 
heresy.  The  mother  church  is  nevertheless  in  relative  decline. 
The  process  was  inevitable  with  the  larger  growth  of  Gentile 
Christianity  and  the  natural  disappearance  of  the  eyewitnesses. 
It  was  greatly  accelerated  (unless  our  interpretation  of  the 
data  be  at  fault)  by  the  inherited  conservatism  of  the  church 
of  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  which  led  it  to  rely  too  exclusively 
for  its  boasted  tradition  of  the  Lord's  words  and  deeds  on  un- 
written tradition. 

The  period  ended  by  the  second  great  Jewish  revolt,  sup- 
pressed, after  bloody  massacres  in  Mesopotamia  as  well  as  in 
North  Africa  and  Cyprus,  by  Trajan  in  the  last  year  of  his  reign, 
was  a  period  marked  in  the  Jerusalem  church  by  development 
of  evangelic  tradition  along  the  midrashic-apocalyptic  lines  in- 
dicated by  the  fragments  preserved  by  Irenaeus  from  Papias' 
''  traditions  of  the  Elders,"  principally  in  the  fifth  Book  of  his 
Heresies.  The  same  period  witnessed  (as  Eusebius  informs  us) 
the  growth  among  the  Greek-speaking  churches  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  written  Gospels,  including  heretical  works  as  well  as 
orthodox.  This  period  of  Trajan  seems  to  have  been  that  of 
Papias'  enquiries,  which  at  the  time  of  composition  of  his 
Exegesis  was  already  long  past  (rroTe,  KaXcos  iixvqixbvevaa). 
Seventeen  years  later  (134-135)  the  third  and  most  disastrous 
Jewish  uprising  under  lead  of  Bar  Cocheba  brought  about  the 
irreparable  dispersal  of  the  Church  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders 
in  Jerusalem.  Those  who  had  survived  the  double  pressure  of 
Jewish  and  Roman  hatred  were  driven  into  exile  by  Hadrian's 
decree  forbidding  approach  within  twelve  miles  of  Jerusalem 
to  any  circumcised  man.  Henceforth  the  succession  at  Jerusa- 
lem (Aelia  Capitolina  as  it  was  now  renamed)  is  Gentile  in  both 
name  and  fact.  Efforts  like  those  of  Hegesippus  to  restore  its 
claim  to  be  the  arbiter  of  orthodoxy  are  foredoomed  to  failure. 

Obscurity  almost  as  great  as  that  surrounding  the  history  of 
the  Christian  caliphate  in  Jerusalem  surrounds  the  great  Pau- 
line centre  in  Proconsular  Asia.  Ephesus  was  even  from  Paul's 
own  time  (Acts  19,  10)  the  predestined  centre  of  Christianity 
in  the  Hellenic  world.  By  93  a. d.  it  is  chief  among  seven  repre- 
sentative "  churches  of  Asia,"  which  cover  all  Ionia  and  make 


CONCLUSION  101 

its  sphere  of  influence  contiguous  with  those  which  are  joined 
with  it  less  than  a  decade  earHer  by  that  Pauhne  encyclical  to 
Asia  Minor,  the  writing  known  to  us  as  First  Peter.  From  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  the  Johannine  Epistles  and  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  from  the  Ignatian  Epistles  and  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp,  we 
learn  something  of  the  desperate  struggle  of  Ephesus  against  the 
foe  within,  Paul's  "  many  adversaries,"  the  men  who,  according 
to  the  prediction  of  Acts  20,  30  "  shall  arise  from  among  your 
own  selves,  speaking  perverse  things  to  draw  away  the  disciples 
after  them." 

The  "  epistles  of  the  Spirit  to  the  churches  "  of  Rev.  1-3 
come  a  little  later  to  shed  light  on  conditions  in  Ephesus  and 
its  neighbor  churches.  The  author  gives  closer  definition  and  a 
name  to  these  "  Balaamite  "^  heretics.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
apocalyptic  visions,  of  Palestinian  origin,  demonstrably  trans- 
lated from  the  Semitic,  to  which  these  "  letters  "  are  prefixed 
as  a  prologue  or  introduction,  should  be  brought  into  relation 
with  the  acknowledged  millenarianism  of  Papias,  known  to 
have  been  based  upon  this  book.  It  should  be  compared  with 
what  we  learn  through  Eusebius  and  elsewhere  of  the  migration 
from  Caesarea  Palestinae  to  Hierapolis  of  Philip  the  Evangelist 
with  his  four  "  prophesying  "  daughters.  One  of  these  four 
prophetesses,  who  seems  to  have  married  a  Christian,  spent  the 
remainder  of  her  hfe  in  Ephesus.  At  least  two  of  the  others 
settled  in  Hierapohs,  where  their  "  traditions  "  became  (di- 
rectly or  indirectly)  accessible  to  Papias,  and  are  reported  by 
him. 

In  view  of  these  actual  connections  with  Palestine  and  of  the 
acknowledged  danger  from  Gnostic  heresy,  it  is  not  surprising 
to  find  in  Ephesus  another  force  at  work  besides  the  magnificent 
reincarnation  of  Paulinism  in  the  "  Johannine  "  Epistles  and 
Fourth  Gospel.  The  references  in  First  Timothy  (addressed  to 
Ephesus)  and  the  other  Pastoral  Epistles  to  the  "  pattern  of 
sound  words,"  even  "  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
doctrine  which  is  according  to  godhness,"  confirm  what  we 
should  certainly  anticipate,  the  effort  of  the  church  leaders  in 

^  Rev.  2,  14.  The  mention  of  Balaam  by  name  is  new.  The  comparison  is 
Paul's  (1  Cor.  10,  6-8),  and  is  adopted  in  Jude  (verse  11)  and  2  Peter  (2,  15). 


102  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

"  Asia  "  to  set  up  authentic  gospel  tradition  as  a  bulwark 
against  the  threatening  vagaries  of  the  errorists,  who  are  ac- 
cused by  Poly  carp  of  "  denying  the  (physical)  resurrection  and 
judgment,  and  perverting  the  sacred  oracles  of  the  Lord  (rd. 
X67ta  Tov  Kvplov)  to  their  own  lusts."    No  wonder  his  later  col- 
league (eraipos)  Papias  makes  these  two  lines  of  teaching  his 
main  interest,  (a)  the  doctrine  of  "  resurrection  and  judgment  " 
set  forth  in  the  "  Johannine  "  book  of  prophecy,  and  (6)  the 
"  commandments  delivered  by  the  Lord  to  the  faith,"  which 
Papias  believed  to  have  been  recorded  "  in  the  Hebrew  tongue 
by  Matthew."    It  was  the  purpose  of  his  book  to  give  to  these 
logia  that  authentic  interpretation  (as  against  the  misinterpre- 
tation of  the  teachers  of  "  alien,"  dXXorptas,  commandments). 
For  in  Papias'  "  well-remembered  "  youth  such  authentic  in- 
terpretation was  still  to  be  had  from  the  "  living  and  abiding 
voice  "  of  Palestinian  tradition.     No  wonder,  then,  that  in 
enumerating  the  apostolic  sources  of  these  "  traditions  of  the 
elders  "  Papias  should  name  last  "  John  "  (the  author  of  the 
"  prophecy  ")  and  "  Matthew  "  the  author  of  the  "  Compila- 
tion (avvTa^Ls)  of  the  Lord's  Oracles."    The  one  was  his  supreme 
authority  for  the  doctrine  of  "  resurrection  and  judgment,'^ 
the  other  for  the  "  oracles  of  the  Lord." 

At  Ephesus,  accordingly,  we  see  distinctly  two  allied,  but 
strangely  diverse  types  of  Christian  teaching;  the  one  unmis- 
takably Pauline,  the  other  quite  as  markedly  Palestinian,  be- 
ing as  largely  Aramaic  in  language  as  it  is  characteristically 
Jewish  in  type  of  thought.  The  Ephesian  canon  combines  the 
two  factors  under  the  common  name  of  "  John,"  the  name  first 
attached  by  an  Ephesian  editor  to  the  Book  of  Revelation. 
Soon  all  five  writings  are  ascribed  to  this  Apostle,  the  Gospel, 
the  three  Epistles,  and  the  book  of  "  Prophecy  "  alike.  It  re- 
mained for  a  Dionysius,  the  pupil  of  Origen,  to  point  out  the 
impossibility  of  common  authorship. 

Scarcely  less  obscure  than  at  Ephesus  is  the  history  of  post- 
apostoHc  Christianity  at  Rome.  Here  too,  however,  the  same 
great  forces  were  at  work,  though  in  different  proportion.  Rome 
had  not  the  experience  enjoyed  at  Ephesus  of  a  long  period  of 
the  direct  teaching  of  Paul.    The  foundations  had  here  been 


CONCLUSION  103 

laid  by  other  hands.  Paul  could  only  temper  and  guide  the 
conflicting  tendencies  (Phil.  1,  15-18;  3,  1-16).  On  the  other 
hand  the  practical  disposition  of  the  West  gave  less  opportunity 
to  the  Gnostic  vagaries  so  much  at  home  in  Ionia.  A  Pauline 
Logos  doctrine  would  ultimately  make  its  way  to  Rome  (in 
spite  of  conservative  opposition  from  Gaius  and  the  alogi),  just 
as  the  Gnostic  heresies  made  their  way  thither  from  Antioch 
and  Alexandria.  But  the  process  would  be  relatively  slow.  In 
the  period  of  Clement  (96  a.d.)  and  Hermas  (110-130?)  Rome 
is  not  so  much  troubled  by  heresy  as  by  questions  of  practical 
administration.  Justin  (152-160)  is  her  first  great  malleus 
haereticorum. 

The  dark  period  of  Roman  church  history  is  that  which  fol- 
lows the  martyrdom  of  Paul  under  Nero  (60-64).  Later  tradi- 
tion brings  Peter  also  thither  from  Antioch  to  suffer  martyrdom 
"  at  the  same  time."  But  at  least  the  location  of  this  martyr- 
dom is  more  than  doubtful.  Clement's  uniting  of  the  two  great 
Apostles  as  the  leaders  of  a  common  host  of  martyrs  ^  has  no 
real  suggestion  of  identity  of  place;  and  subsequent  Roman 
tradition  is  too  obviously  biased,  and  too  open  to  the  suspicion 
of  suggestion  from  1  Peter  5,  13  and  John  21,  18-19  to  inspire 
any  confidence.  Even  if  Peter  came  late  in  life  a  condemned 
prisoner  to  suffer  at  Rome,  as  is  perhaps  implied  in  the  (Ro- 
man?) appendix  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  he  exerted  no  direct 
personal  influence  on  the  doctrinal  development  of  the  local 
church. 

On  the  other  hand  if  the  traditional  Roman  provenance  of 
Mark  be  really  estabhshed  along  the  lines  followed  in  the  fore- 
going discussion  —  if  we  may  regard  as  probable  the  relations 
for  which  reasons  have  been  above  adduced  on  the  one  side 
(a)  between  the  Gospel  and  the  type  of  "  strong  "  Paulinism 
reflected  in  Romans;  on  the  other  (b)  between  the  tradition 
connecting  it  with  "  Peter "  and  the  (doctrinally)  Pauline 
encyclical  addressed  (from  Rome?)  to  the  churches  of  Asia 
Minor,  urging  them  in  the  name  of  "  Peter  "  to  stand  fast 
through  all  the  (Domitianic)  persecution  in  the  "  true  grace  of 
God  "  which  they  have  received  from  Paul  and  Silvanus  — 

1  1  Clem.  6. 


104  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

then  very  much  m  this  perplexing  history  becomes  most  in- 
structively clear. 

We  learn  to  know  the  supreme  effort  of  Paul's  closing  years 
as  that  of  the  peace-maker.  We  see  him,  while  preparing  for 
the  great  adventure  at  Jerusalem  which  he  hopes  may  bring 
together  after  years  of  hostiUty  "  the  apostleship  of  the  circum- 
cision "  given  to  Peter  and  "  the  apostleship  of  the  Gentiles  " 
given  to  himself,  imploring  the  prayers  and  the  co-operation  of 
the  "  strong  "  at  Rome.  When,  two  years  after,  a  prisoner 
practically  under  sentence  of  death  in  consequence  of  his  effort 
at  Jerusalem,  he  finds  himself  actually  at  Rome  in  company 
with  "  Mark  "  and  other  of  his  old-time  helpers,  his  voice  is  still 
for  peace. 

Ephesians  is  the  very  embodiment  of  this  "  catholic  "  Paul- 
inism.  If  this  great  Epistle  of  the  Unity  of  the  Spirit  written 
from  Rome  under  the  name  of  Paul  be  not  actually  the  product 
of  his  own  pen,  it  is  the  best  exposition  of  the  later  peace-making 
Paulinism  that  was  ever  composed.  On  it  is  based  the  Asian 
encycHcal  written  under  the  name  of  Peter  to  plead  for  world- 
wide steadfastness  against  imperial  persecution  in  the  purity  of 
a  common  faith.  Here  we  find  commendation  of  Mark,  the 
companion,  first  of  the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  afterwards 
of  Paul,  as  Peter's  spiritual  "  son." 

From  Hebrews,  an  earlier  exhortation  of  Deutero-Pauline 
and  Alexandrian  type  probably  sent  to  Rome,  and  from  First 
Peter,  we  may  infer  what  new  dangers  were  tending  in  the  West 
to  effect  that  drawing  together  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers 
in  behalf  of  which  Paul's  life-blood  had  been  poured  out,  an 
"  offering  of  reconciliation  "  between  man  and  man  in  worthy 
imitation  of  his  Master's  atonement  between  man  and  God. 
The  pressure  of  imperial  persecution  under  Domitian,  first 
severely  felt  (it  would  seem)  in  Palestine,  but  soon  extended 
"  throughout  the  world  "  (1  Peter  5,  9),  produced  an  effect 
similar  to  that  later  produced  in  proconsular  Asia  by  the  peril 
of  Gnostic  heresy.  The  Christians  drew  together.  The  Pauline 
churches  sought  closer  fellowship  with  the  Petrine,  and  the 
Petrine  with  the  Pauline.  Not  mere  geographical  divisions  were 
overcome,  but  divergent  tendencies  co-operated.     At  Rome 


CONCLUSION  105 

leaders  of  Pauline  stamp  and  training  not  only  made  use  of  the 
names  of  Mark  and  Peter  to  encourage  churches  of  Pauline 
origin,  but  attached  the  same  names  to  the  surviving  records 
of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus,  which  with  the  appalling 
mortality  in  the  ranks  of  the  authoritative  witnesses  experienced 
under  Nero  ^  had  attained,  as  it  were  at  a  bound,  to  irreplaceable 
value. 

What  tendencies  were  in  control  at  Rome  during  this  obscure 
period  of  the  beginnings  of  catholicity  will  be  judged  differ- 
ently as  students  interpret  the  peculiarities  of  "  Markan  " 
evangelic  tradition,  the  western  branch  of  that  which  by  com- 
bination with  the  Second  Source  obtained  pre-eminent  cur- 
rency in  East  as  well  as  West.  The  interpretation  to  which  some 
expression  has  been  given  in  the  foregoing  enquiry  rests  upon  a 
comparison  between  Mark  and  the  Pauline  Epistles,  more  es- 
pecially Romans.  It  differs  widely  indeed  from  the  famous 
theory  of  Baur,  though  its  starting  point  is  the  same,  the  great 
division  attested  by  Paul  (Gal.  2,  1-10)  of  the  missionary  field 
into  a  Petrine  apostolate  of  the  circumcision  and  a  Pauline 
apostolate  of  the  Gentiles.  The  reconciliation  in  cathoUcity 
which  the  Tubingen  critics  placed  in  the  age  of  Justin  and  Ire- 
naeus,  we  find  already  attempted  (and  to  a  heroic  degree  ac- 
complished) by  Paul.  But  we  distinguish,  as  Paul  himself  dis- 
tinguished, between  such  as  called  themselves  "  of  Paul," 
mainly  in  the  sense  of  insisting  on  their  liberty,  regardless  of 
Petrine  "  weak  brethren,"  and  true  imitators  of  the  great 
Apostle,  imbued  with  his  peace-making  spirit  as  well  as  appre- 
ciative of  his  deeper,  more  mystical  doctrine. 

To  Baur,  Mark  was  a  compromising,  Petro-Pauline  gospel, 
a  late  combination  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Few  doctrines  of 
criticism  have  been  more  completely  overturned  than  this. 
The  restoration  of  this  simple  and  primitive  composition  to  its 
true  place  of  precedence  over  Matthew  and  Luke  is  the  great 

1  Heb.  10,  32;  13,  7;  Rev.  17,  6;  Clement  ad  Cor.  5.  The  martyrdoms  of 
Paul  and  Peter  (both?)  at  Rome,  of  James,  (John?),  and  "  others  "  (Josephus 
and  Hegesippus  ap.  Eusebius,  H.  E.  ii,  23)  in  Jerusalem  at  about  the  same  date, 
would  alone  suflfice  to  mark  the  reign  of  Nero  with  an  evil  pre-eminence.  To 
Clement  of  Alexandria  it  marks,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  5,  note  2),  the  end  of  the 
apostohc  age. 


106  IS  MARK  A  ROMAN  GOSPEL? 

contribution  of  our  age  to  the  problem  of  Gospel  origins.  If 
the  estabhshment  of  its  post-apostolic  date  and  Roman  prove- 
nance shall  help  to  exhibit  it  in  what  seems  to  the  present  writer 
its  true  light,  a  product  of  that  "  strong  "  Paulinism,  which 
at  Rome  was  later  brought,  through  the  providence  of  God  and 
the  prevailing  spirit  of  Paul  the  peacemaker,  into  sympathy 
and  loyal  union  with  the  "  weak,"  the  chief  purpose  of  the 
present  enquiry  will  have  been  attained. 


ADDENDA  ET  CORRIGENDA 

Page  14.  To  note  2  add:  Lightfoot  (Ignatius,  vol.  ii,  p.  493)  had 
previously  expressed  the  conviction  that  Papias  rested 
his  belief  on  this  passage. 

Page  16.    To  note  1  add:  Also  KvpiaKo.  Xoyia  i.  8,  1. 

Page  29,  line  27.    For  "  we  have  seen  "  read  "  Zahn  believes." 

Page  34,  line  8.    Add  this  footnote: 

To  the  above  exception  should  be  made  of  1  Clem.  15, 
2,  where  the  Roman  author,  ca.  95  a.d.,  quotes  Is.  29, 13 
exactly  as  it  is  given  in  Mark  (Matthew  here  conform- 
ing shghtly  to  Lxx),  except  that  he  writes  ixireaTtv,  where 
both  gospels  have  dTraxei  with  Lxx.  Sanday  (The  Gospels 
in  the  Second  Century,  p.  69)  approves  the  verdict  of 
Volkmar  that  Clement  is  here  affected  by  Mark.  He 
even  considers  this  passage  "the  strongest  evidence  we 
possess  for  the  use  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  by  Clement." 

Page  43,  line  18.     For  koXv^oSclktvXos  read  K6\o^o8aKTv\os. 

Page  54,  line  15.     For  XeirTo  8vd  read  XeirTo.  dvo. 

Page  58,  Unes  4  and  7.  For  "  faulty  "  and  "  errors  "  read  "  dia- 
lectic "  and  "  peculiarities."  The  imputation  of  error 
in  transliteration  is  unwarranted,  the  obscuration  of  the 
vowel  (d  to  6)  being  probably  only  a  dialectic  peculiar- 
ity. On  the  other  hand  the  disagreement  of  the  explana- 
tion: Jesus  was  quoting  Ps.  22,  1,  with  the  phrase:  He 
is  calling  Elias  (Elidhu),  is  apparent  even  if  with  some 
texts  the  Hebrew  (Eli)  be  substituted  for  the  Aramaic 
(Eldhi). 

Page  87,  line  20.    Transpose  2  to  line  33,  after  "  Son  of  God." 

Page  93,  line  11.    For  "  verna  "  read  "  vernal." 


